<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 6, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Matthew Johnson <<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" class="">matthew@anandabits.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><div class="">To give you an example of the confusion, here is code made perfectly legal by SE-0025:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> public final class Example {</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> overridable func foo() {}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> }</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>I have no idea how you think this is related to SE-0025 (scoped access control). I also don’t understand why you think an `overridable` method in a `final` class would be legal under any proposal. That is nonsense and clearly in error.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>SE-0117, which we are reviewing here, in its introduction introduces the new `subclassable` and `overridable` modifiers in a discussion about `public`, and indicates that they are used instead of that keyword. This to me strongly implies that these are in the same family as the access control modifiers.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>SE-0025 removes the error when the access of a member within a type is less restrictive, thus removes the error that would otherwise occur with the above code.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Consider this another strong argument for keeping access and inheritability separate, the following code would be obviously an error/warning since `open` makes no sense within a `final` class:</div><div><br class=""></div><div> public final class Example {</div><div><br class=""></div><div> public open func foo() {}</div><div><br class=""></div><div> }</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Clarity is always a goal for Swift. This to me has more of it than replacing `public`.</div><div><br class=""></div></div>Scott</body></html>