These apps you’re referring too would still be possible. Reflection and method swizzling is an alternative to subclassing for working around bugs in authors frameworks without exposing the ability to subclass by default across all class types everywhere. In addition, if there are places where the author is casting to the specific type for some reason, the method swizzled approach will still work where as subclassing will not.
While Swift doesn’t have a full on reflection system yet, it’s on the roadmap. I’d much rather see us getting into safer, and frankly more correct, defaults while still providing mechanisms to do, what essentially boil down to hacks, to get stuff working. -David > On Dec 20, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with this. -1 to the proposal. > > Charles > >> On Dec 17, 2015, at 8:00 PM, Rod Brown via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> To play devils advocate, take for example UINavigationController in UIKit on >> iOS. >> >> I’ve seen multiple times in multiple projects legitimate reasons for >> subclassing it, despite the fact that UIKit documentation says we “should >> not need to subclass it”. So if we relied on Apple to “declare”, they most >> probably wouldn’t, and these use cases (and some really impressive apps) >> would become impossible. >> >> While I agree with all points made about “If it’s not declared subclassable, >> they didn’t design it that way”, I think that ties everyone’s hands too >> much. There is a balance between safety and functionality that must be >> worked out. I think this errs way too far on the side of safety. >> >> Rod >> >> >>> On 18 Dec 2015, at 12:51 PM, Javier Soto <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> What if one framework provider thinks “you won’t need to subclass this ever” >>> >>> If the framework author didn't design and implement that class with >>> subclassing in mind, chances are it's not necessarily safe to do so, or at >>> least not without knowledge of the implementation. That's why I think >>> deciding that a class can be subclassed is a decision that should be made >>> consciously, and not just "I forgot to make it final" >>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:41 PM Rod Brown <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> My opinion is -1 on this proposal. Classes seem by design to intrinsically >>> support subclassing. >>> >>> What if one framework provider thinks “you won’t need to subclass this >>> ever” but didn’t realise your use case for doing so, and didn’t add the >>> keyword? When multiple developers come at things from different angles, the >>> invariable situation ends with use cases each didn’t realise. Allowing >>> subclassing by default seems to mitigate this risk at least for the most >>> part. >>> >>> I think this definitely comes under the banner of “this would be nice” >>> without realising the fact you’d be shooting yourself in the foot when >>> someone doesn’t add the keyword in other frameworks and you’re annoyed you >>> can’t add it. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 18 Dec 2015, at 10:46 AM, Javier Soto via swift-evolution >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> Does it seem like there's enough interesest in this proposal? If so, what >>>> would be the next steps? Should I go ahead and create a PR on the >>>> evolution repo, describing the proposal version that Joe suggested, with >>>> classes closed for inheritance by default outside of a module? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:40 AM Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> I understand the rationale, I just disagree with it. >>>> >>>> IMO adding a keyword to state your intention for inheritance is not a >>>> significant obstacle to prototyping and is not artificial bookkeeping. I >>>> really don't understand how this would conflict with "consequence-free" >>>> rapid development. It is a good thing to require people to stop and think >>>> before using inheritance. Often there is a more appropriate alternative. >>>> >>>> The assumption that it is straightforward to fix problems within a module >>>> if you later decide you made a mistake is true in some respects but not in >>>> others. It is not uncommon for apps to be monolithic rather than being >>>> well factored into separate modules, with many developers contributing and >>>> the team changing over time. While this is not ideal it is reality. >>>> >>>> When you have the full source it is certainly *possible* to solve any >>>> problem but it is often not straightforward at all. Here is an example of >>>> a real-work scenario app developers might walk into: >>>> >>>> 1) A class is developed without subclassing in mind by one developer. >>>> 2) After the original developer is gone another developer adds some >>>> subclasses without stopping to think about whether the original developer >>>> designed for subclassing, thereby introducing subtle bugs into the app. >>>> 3) After the second developer is gone the bugs are discovered, but by this >>>> time there are nontrivial dependencies on the subclasses. >>>> 4) A third developer who probably has little or no context for the >>>> decisions made by previous developers is tasked with fixing the bugs. >>>> >>>> This can be quite a knot to untangle, especially if there are problems >>>> modifying the superclass to properly support the subclasses (maybe this >>>> breaks the contract the superclass has with its original clients). >>>> >>>> It may have been possible to avoid the whole mess if the second developer >>>> was required to add 'inheritable' and 'overrideable' keywords or similar. >>>> They are already required to revisit the source of it while adding the >>>> keywords which may lead to consideration of whether the implementation is >>>> sufficient to support inheritance in their currently intended manner. >>>> >>>> Implementation inheritance is a blunt tool that often leads to >>>> unanticipated problems. IMO a modern language should steer developers >>>> away from it and strive to reduce the cases where it is necessary or more >>>> convenient. Making final the default would help to do this. >>>> >>>> Supporting sealed classes and methods that can only be subclassed or >>>> overridden within the same module is not in conflict with final by >>>> default. Both are good ideas IMO and I would like to see both in Swift. >>>> >>>> I hope the core team is willing to revisit this decision with community >>>> input. If not I will let it go, although I doubt I will ever agree with >>>> the current decision. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 10:30 PM, John McCall <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >>>> >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>> Defaults of public sealed/final classes and final methods on a class >>>> >>> by default are a tougher call. Either way you may have design issues >>>> >>> go unnoticed until someone needs to subclass to get the behavior they >>>> >>> want. So when you reach that point, should the system error on the >>>> >>> side of rigid safety or dangerous flexibility? >>>> >> >>>> >> This is a nice summary of the tradeoff. I strongly prefer safety >>>> >> myself and I believe the preference for safety fits well with the >>>> >> overall direction of Swift. If a library author discovers a design >>>> >> oversight and later decides they should have allowed for additional >>>> >> flexibility it is straightforward to allow for this without breaking >>>> >> existing client code. >>>> >> >>>> >> Many of the examples cited in argument against final by default have to >>>> >> do with working around library or framework bugs. I understand the >>>> >> motivation to preserve this flexibility bur don't believe bug >>>> >> workarounds are a good way to make language design decisions. I also >>>> >> believe use of subclasses and overrides in ways the library author may >>>> >> not have intended to is a fragile technique that is likely to >>>> >> eventually cause as many problems as it solves. I have been >>>> >> programming a long time and have never run into a case where this >>>> >> technique was the only way or even the best way to accomplish the task >>>> >> at hand. >>>> >> >>>> >> One additional motivation for making final the default that has not >>>> >> been discussed yet is the drive towards making Swift a protocol >>>> >> oriented language. IMO protocols should be the first tool considered >>>> >> when dynamic polymorphism is necessary. Inheritance should be reserved >>>> >> for cases where other approaches won't work (and we should seek to >>>> >> reduce the number of problems where that is the case). Making final >>>> >> the default for classes and methods would provide a subtle (or maybe >>>> >> not so subtle) hint in this direction. >>>> >> >>>> >> I know the Swift team at Apple put a lot of thought into the defaults >>>> >> in Swift. I agree with most of them. Enabling subclassing and >>>> >> overriding by default is the one case where I think a significant >>>> >> mistake was made. >>>> > >>>> > Our current intent is that public subclassing and overriding will be >>>> > locked down by default, but internal subclassing and overriding will not >>>> > be. I believe that this strikes the right balance, and moreover that it >>>> > is consistent with the general language approach to code evolution, >>>> > which is to promote “consequence-free” rapid development by: >>>> > >>>> > (1) avoiding artificial bookkeeping obstacles while you’re hacking up >>>> > the initial implementation of a module, but >>>> > >>>> > (2) not letting that initial implementation make implicit source and >>>> > binary compatibility promises to code outside of the module and >>>> > >>>> > (3) providing good language tools for incrementally building those >>>> > initial prototype interfaces into stronger internal abstractions. >>>> > >>>> > All the hard limitations in the defaults are tied to the module boundary >>>> > because we assume that it’s straightforward to fix any problems within >>>> > the module if/when you decided you made a mistake earlier. >>>> > >>>> > So, okay, a class is subclassable by default, and it wasn’t really >>>> > designed for that, and now there are subclasses in the module which are >>>> > causing problems. As long as nobody's changed the default (which they >>>> > could have done carelessly in either case, but are much less likely to >>>> > do if it’s only necessary to make an external subclass), all of those >>>> > subclasses will still be within the module, and you still have free rein >>>> > to correct that initial design mistake. >>>> > >>>> > John. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Javier Soto _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> >>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>> >>> -- >>> Javier Soto >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
