On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Tino Heth <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not sure if I like the concept of having two kinds of enum. > > > Why not? Bool-like enums would be declared ‘closed’, and would not require > a default case (but adding a new case would then break ABI). > > > Well, enums are already (relative) complex, and with this addition, there > would be six different flavors. > Imho it would be less bad if we could recycle existing modifiers, but with > a hypothetic "closed" access level added as well, I have strong doubts that > the feature carries its weight. > > > Closed would not be an access level, just an attribute orthogonal to the > others. What do you mean by the six different flavors? > My read of Matthew Johnson's pitch is that `closed` is to be a sixth access level. For better or worse we need the ability to define enums that admit new > cases without breaking ABI. Whether or not this is the default for all > enums, or enabled with a special attribute can be designed later when we > send out evolution proposals for resilience-related features. > > Intuitively, I thought this should not affect ABI… but no matter what > instability this is, I guess it could definitely crash an application that > is confronted with an unexpected case ;-) > > Wouldn't it be possible to create an implicit default case for every > switch-statement? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
