Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

Well said, thanks for taking time to post this :). Sent from my iPhone > On 22 Feb 2017, at 19:34, Tino Heth via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> This is bad faith. The original discussion contains many real life example. > "bad faith"? Really? If we have the same

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

> This is bad faith. The original discussion contains many real life example. "bad faith"? Really? If we have the same interpretation of this phrase in our dictionaries, it's only fitting here as attribute for the sentence following it. I took a position that is extremely easy to attack, yet the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

> On Feb 22, 2017, at 1:41 AM, Charlie Monroe wrote: > >> >> On Feb 22, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Jonathan Hull > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 11:29 PM, Charlie Monroe via swift-evolution >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

> On Feb 21, 2017, at 11:29 PM, Charlie Monroe via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> On Feb 22, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Jean-Daniel via swift-evolution >> > wrote: >> >> >>> Le 21 févr. 2017 à 17:19, Tino Heth via

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

Maybe some people disagree with the emphasis on the library writer POV and from a user perspective of other people's libraries they have been accustomed to how you can be trusted with enough responsibility to either fix a behaviour in the binary lib you have been given or modify the sequence of

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

> On Feb 22, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Jean-Daniel via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> Le 21 févr. 2017 à 17:19, Tino Heth via swift-evolution >> > a écrit : >> >> >>> I’ll concede that the proposal makes a

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

> 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

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

On 21 Feb 2017, at 13:19, Brent Royal-Gordon > wrote: Really? Three sentences presenting an unsupported opinion? I’ll concede that the proposal makes a claim that might very well be disproved. I would very much like to see an actual

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

> On Feb 20, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Dimitri Racordon via swift-evolution > wrote: > > We believe this use case is rare and not worth the additional complexity of > having an `open` access level in the language. > Besides, `open` is only applicable on classes and class

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

While I am in favor of this, I do think this should not be a proposal on its own, rather it should be folded into a general overhaul of the entire access level structure. Regards, Rien Site: http://balancingrock.nl Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com Github: http://github.com/Balancingrock

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

To those people I would say use final or let's change public to mean the current open and replace open with 'module'... I liked open by default and this not needing open in the first place... you guys got me here ;). Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Feb 2017, at 07:02, David Hart via

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

Hi David, Thanks for your feedback. Do you have yourself an example in which a final entity would be clearly needed inside its module? I have seen theoretical use-cases already, but haven’t encountered a “real-life” situation that’d need this pattern yet. On 21 Feb 2017, at 08:02, David Hart

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

I think this proposal will receive a lot of pushback and that the use case for having a class that is subclassable inside its module but not subclassable outside the module is more frequent than you think. > On 21 Feb 2017, at 07:44, Dimitri Racordon via swift-evolution >

[swift-evolution] [Proposal Draft] Remove open Access Modifier

Hi all, Here’s a draft proposal following https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170220/032576.html. The idea is simplify Swift’s syntax by getting rid of the `open` access modifier. A rendered version of the proposal is available here: