> On Feb 14, 2017, at 18:16, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, perhaps I'm being simplistic here, but-- > > At the end of the day, aren't we simply trying to enable a resiliency > feature? Could it not be said that an enum where future added cases aren't > source-breaking is a more resilient enum? > > Since there is consensus that the status quo is desirable for a lot of use > cases, couldn't we keep spelling it "public enum" and just spell this > proposed more resilient enum "@resilient public enum"?
Not quite. Resilience is about making changes that aren't source-breaking also not ABI-breaking (within reason, balanced against performance implications). "Open" vs. "non-open" enums also affect modules distributed as source—is it a source-breaking change to add a new case or not? Jordan _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
