<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><span 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; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Also "subclassable class" sounds a bit redundant. In other words, I think subclassable implies it is a class.</span></div></blockquote></div>That's a good point:<div class="">There is no inherent reason that you can't inherit from a struct, and that might be possible in a future version of swift.</div><div class="">"subclassable struct MyValue" doesn't read that bad, but depending on how much emphasis is given to the difference of classes and structs, this could be irritating.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But imho the naming is bad anyways:</div><div class="">Both keywords are completely irrelevant for "regular" developers, yet they are directly linked to fundamental concepts of the language.</div><div class="">Removing "overridable" from a method has not the expected effect (you still can override it), and the same is true for subclassable.</div><div class="">Something abstract (like "virtual") would be a little less confusing.</div></body></html>