That starts to look an awful lot like a fifth access level just for classes
(I know you're not proposing one, but it could start to look that way to a
user). I think there's much to be said for having the word public in front
of things that are public. Unless, of course, your strawman keyword is a
much maligned compound word that begins with "public", like
"publicoverridable".
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 01:54 Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > If we're going to go along those lines, we should just use
> public(subclassable) and public(overridable). We can fall back on those if
> necessary; I would just like to continue looking for better alternatives.
>
> I would prefer to have a *single* keyword which meant both public and
> overridable. That would minimize the impact of this feature—instead of
> writing:
>
> public class MyViewController: UIViewController {
> public func displayMe(_ me: person) { … }
> }
>
> You'd write (strawman keyword):
>
> openseason class MyViewController: UIViewController {
> openseason func displayMe(_ me: person) { … }
> }
>
> And then `MyViewController` could be subclassed, and `displayMe`
> overridden.
>
> --
> Brent Royal-Gordon
> Architechies
>
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
