[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review #2] SE-0117: Default classes to be non-subclassable publicly
xiaodi.wu at gmail.com
Mon Jul 18 11:31:18 CDT 2016
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Taras Zakharko via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > On 18 Jul 2016, at 14:07, Károly Lőrentey via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > I see no drawback to this pattern; it is quite clear and simple.
> Therefore, in the interest of keeping the language free of needless
> complexity, I suggest we change the proposal to remove the implicit
> "sealed" level of public member overridability, and support only "open" or
> "final" class members.
> At the same time, your solution results in a lot of unnecessary
It's an exaggeration to say that it's *a lot* of boilerplate. It's one line
or two in the base class.
> Sure, it might be rare with methods, but don’t forget about properties! It
> makes perfect sense to have properties that should be only overridable
> internally while being accessible publicly.
My first reaction here was: of course, good point! But then, on reflection,
what properties should behave this way? Can you give an example of a
property that makes sense to override in internal subclasses but not in
external subclasses, but that must be accessible publicly?
> Imagine adding that boilerplate to every such property..
On balance, I think the number of `open` annotations would far exceed the
amount of this boilerplate. I'm not convinced it is even a mildly common
> Basically, if we do it your way, then it won’t be long that someone
> submits a proposal for a keyword for synthesising the boilerplate, which
> more or less brings us back to square one.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution