> Le 5 janv. 2018 à 10:33, Goffredo Marocchi <pana...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Fair concerns Gwendal, but why can’t the default in these cases be just > exhaustive / frozen unless the library developer explicitly marks it as > “unfrozen/non exhaustive” and the compiler can warn the users when they > switch over it instead of throwing an error by default (the user can still > treat warnings as errors if they want and suppress this warning if they > wanted to in this vision)?
The proposal suggests default non-frozen enums. If I remember well, that's because it's easier to switch from non-frozen to frozen than the opposite. I buy this ABI-based argument very well, since 1. I'm not an ABI expert, and 2. as a library author I will scratch my head for each of my public enums anyway. Now I still think that the choice is really uneasy. I've given some GRDB examples. And I'd also like to know how ABI experts would have introduced and evolved SKPaymentTransactionState in a hypothetic Swift 5+ world. Gwendal _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
