> On Jul 14, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > - Second is that clients of some other public API vended by a non-Apple > framework (e.g. a SwiftPM package) may end up in a situation where the > framework author didn’t consider subclass-ability, but the client desires it. > In this situation, the core team feels that a bigger problem happened: the > vendor of the framework did not completely consider the use cases of the > framework. This might have happened due to the framework not using > sufficient black box unit testing, a failure of the imagination of the > designer in terms of use cases, or because they have a bug in their framework > that needs unanticipated subclass-ability in order to “get a job done”.
Or because the framework was developed in the real world, rather than Elysium, and real-world framework developers just about *never* anticipate every single way someone might use their framework (Indeed, if developers were capable of such a thing, there would be no need for third-party software in the first place). Charles
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
