> Le 21 févr. 2017 à 17:19, Tino Heth via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > >> I’ll concede that the proposal makes a claim that might very well be >> disproved. I would very much like to see an actual example of a public class >> that **has** to be public but **shouldn’t** be open for obvious reasons. I >> would happily accept being shown wrong on that point. > This is afaics one of the most active disputes on evolution — and you can > save you a lot of grief by accepting that it is pointless: > The whole discussion isn't based on facts at all, despite many false claims > that marking things as final is generally better. > I have asked for a single example to prove this in the past as well, so I > guess no one can present such a thing to you.
This is bad faith. The original discussion contains many real life example. You just don’t want to admit open is useful for many library writers. > It is personal preference, so arguments don't help much here. > > Maybe it helps to know the whole story, as everything started with "final > should be default", followed by a try to forbid subclassing for types from a > different module by default, finally arriving at the current compromise where > you have to decide wether module clients should be allowed to subclass or not. > Nobody ever requested that public should be the only access level, so there > has been only been pressure applied from one direction — it's interesting to > see some backlash now. > Imho people already were quite tired of discussion when public/open was > accepted as a compromise... > _______________________________________________ > 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
