----- Mail original ----- > De: "Tagir Valeev" <amae...@gmail.com> > À: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Mardi 26 Janvier 2021 10:36:18 > Objet: [sealed] Use 'open' instead of 'non-sealed'?
> Hello! > > The 'non-sealed' keyword looks not very java-ish. It adds cognitive > load, especially to non-native speakers, as it includes the negation > inside. not a problem in French, "no" is "non" in French, we have more trouble with NaN also meaning no :) > Also, it complicates tooling implementation (in particular, > lexing Java programs). Probably some of us want to move forward the > hyphenated keywords proposal and need a guinea pig to experiment with, > but this doesn't seem enough reason to justify its use. > > I suggest using the 'open' contextual keyword instead. The 'open' > class/interface means that it can be inherited without any > restriction. 'open', 'sealed', and 'final' keywords are mutually > exclusive. Any class/interface is either 'open', or 'sealed', or > 'final', no other option. The classes that don't directly > extend/implement sealed classes/interfaces are implicitly 'open' > (though it's possible to redundantly specify the 'open' keyword). The > classes that extend/implement sealed class/interface must specify > open/sealed/final explicitly. so same semantics as non-sealed, just the name of the keyword that changes. I see two reasons to not use open, non-sealed has the nice property of not having to learn two keywords/semantics and open is the context of a module has a semantics which is quite different from if we would use open instead of non-sealed. > > What do you think? > > With best regards, > Tagir Valeev. Rémi
