[swift-evolution] [Review #2] SE-0117: Default classes to be non-subclassable publicly
pyunpyun at me.com
Sat Jul 16 06:48:26 CDT 2016
> 2016/07/16 14:52、Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> のメール：
> Hello Swift community,
> The second review of "SE-0117: Default classes to be non-subclassable publicly" begins now and runs through July 22. The proposal is available here:
> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager.
> What goes into a review?
> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and contribute to the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1 for the improved keywords and purgatory for objc imported modules.
This is much cleaner than the previous proposal, and cant wait to actually get to use this (as a framework author it literally makes me giddy).
Like others, I slightly wonder what will happen in The Real World™ (as a framework consumer) but if things end up too restrictive, it can always be changed down the road I would expect…?
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
> * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
This seems closer to Kotlin; not that I am much of a user of that language so maybe I am unqualified to say, but I think its nice to align with a good design that exists elsewhere…
Objc is of course the exact opposite of this, so it remains to be seen what the effect will be in this community...
> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
Been following this intensely since last year’s initial discussion, finally came out of the shadows to comment when it came up for review, and have been weighing and listening to arguments for and against; my only "against" feelings came about as a consumer of APIs not as a writer, so I want to make sure its apparent that any negatives I had in the past were from that perspective; I very much support the spirit of this proposal and appreciate those that took time to explain and assuage those concerns! What an amazing process this is. ^o^
One thing in the proposal:
The superclass of an open class must be open. <snip/>. These are conservative restrictions that reduce the scope of this proposal; it will be possible to revisit them in a later proposal.
Yes, maybe its an anit-pattern, but I definitely have made many private parent classes and have the child public… the above would mean that I cant do that, as open needs public… it would definitely be appreciated if that is revisited or at least the reasoning (e.g we really shouldn't be making subclasses of private superclasses public because XYZABC etc).
> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
> Thank you,
> -Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution