On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2016, at 8:57 PM, L. Mihalkovic via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 17, 2016, at 9:14 PM, Garth Snyder via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Is there a summary somewhere of the motivation for allowing methods to > be declared non-overridable within open classes? > > > > Because 1) someone woke up one morning and thought it would be great 2) > it goes into the direction of making swift a language for non programmers > 3) the core team wants it > > Laurent: This is not a fair characterization of the actual position of the > proposal's supporters. If you can't be civil about this topic, perhaps you > shouldn't be discussing it at all. > > Garth: I think it's implicit in the reasons to prevent subclassing. The > mere fact that a class allows subclassing doesn't necessarily mean that > every member in it is designed to be subclassed. Consider > `UIViewController`: It's obviously designed to be subclassed, and some > methods in it (such as `loadView`) are intended to be overridden, but > others (such as `loadViewIfNeeded`) are *not* intended to be overridden. And [if UIViewController were to be written in Swift] there'd be a good reason why `loadViewIfNeeded` and others of its ilk couldn't be final? > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > 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
