> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? Strong +1 with the modifications proposed by Brent, I think that a single, short keyword is preferable to two different ones, and `open` is a perfect candidate that express its intent very well.
The only question that it raises is, a public class can be extended with a protocol defined in another module? I think that this aspect is not addresses in the proposal, or I have missed it completely. > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to Swift? Yes > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? Yes indeed! This will fit nicely with the secure aspect of the Swift language, and will avoid cases where the library authors will try to discourage subclassing inside the comments in the class declaration file. > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, > how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? N/A > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? I’ve read the proposal _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
