> On Jun 29, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > Do we really need a new keyword? Since we already have syntax like > `internal(set)` couldn't we do `internal(unsealed)`, etc.
The spelling is definitely up for debate. I remember that Chris in particular wasn't happy with "sealed". (Of course the entire proposal is still up for debate; I'm just saying that so far we've been talking about the proposal at a high level with very little attention to specifics.) John. > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:21 PM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Michael Peternell <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > >> Am 29.06.2016 um 15:54 schrieb David Sweeris via swift-evolution > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: > >> > >> +1 for the concept of a "sealed” class. > >> -1 for making it default. > > > > Aren't sealed classes already implemented? I think the keyword is `final`.. > > So there is nothing left to do :) > > No, `final` doesn’t allow for any subclassing, but `sealed` allows for > subclassing within your module (where you can presumably write more efficient > code based on knowledge of each subclass). > > - Dave Sweeris > _______________________________________________ > 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
