> On Jul 27, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In a future version of Swift, we might consider refining this by requiring >>> people to apply `@testable` directly to declarations which treat something >>> closed as if it's open, but it seems like even the current feature set does >>> not make testing impossible. >> >> +1 to @testable on declarations. I really do not like making things >> internal when they should be private just because a test needs to inspect >> state. > > Whoa, that wasn't what I was suggesting at all. I was suggesting that the > *test suite* should mark the forbidden subclass/override with `@testable`.
Sorry, I misread that. But I still stand by the enhancement to @testable I mentioned. There are times when access control is wider than necessary to support tests and it always sucks doing that. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
