Just realized that Matthew did introduce `sealed` exactly to enable this for
public types. That's fine with me!
-Thorsten
> Am 25.05.2016 um 18:11 schrieb Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org>:
>
> Ceylon uses the following syntax for stating that a class has a finite set of
> subclasses:
>
> class C of C1 | C2 {...}
>
> where `|` is the type union operator. Swift could use a simple comma
> separated list instead after the `or`. The advantage over
> sealed+private/internal would be thatnthe class or protocol could be public
> as well.
>
> -Thorsten
>
>> Am 25.05.2016 um 04:01 schrieb David Sweeris via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org>:
>>
>> Or if there was a way to declare that a class/protocol can only have a
>> defined set of subclasses/conforming types.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On May 24, 2016, at 15:35, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you pattern match on a type that is declared internal or private, it is
>>> impossible for the compiler to not have an exhaustive list of subclasses
>>> that it can check against.
>>>
>>> Austin
>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Leonardo Pessoa <m...@lmpessoa.com> wrote:
>>>> I like this but I think it would be a lot hard to ensure you have all
>>>> subclasses covered. Think of frameworks that could provide many
>>>> unsealed classes. You could also have an object that would have to
>>>> handle a large subtree (NSObject?) and the order in which the cases
>>>> are evaluated would matter just as in exception handling in languages
>>>> such as Java (or require some evaluation from the compiler to raise
>>>> warnings). I'm +1 for this but these should be open-ended like strings
>>>> and require the default case.
>>>>
>>>> On 24 May 2016 at 17:08, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution
>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>> > I have been hoping for the exhaustive pattern matching feature for a
>>>> > while
>>>> > now, and would love to see a proposal.
>>>> >
>>>> > Austin
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
>>>> > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Swift currently requires a default pattern matching clause when you
>>>> >> switch
>>>> >> on an existential or a non-final class even if the protocol or class is
>>>> >> non-public and all cases are covered. It would be really nice if the
>>>> >> default clause were not necessary in this case. The compiler has the
>>>> >> necessary information to prove exhaustiveness.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Related to this is the idea of introducing something like a `sealed`
>>>> >> modifier that could be applied to public protocols and classes. The
>>>> >> protocol or class would be visible when the module is imported, but
>>>> >> conformances or subclasses outside the declaring module would be
>>>> >> prohibited.
>>>> >> Internal and private protocols and classes would implicitly be sealed
>>>> >> since
>>>> >> they are not visible outside the module. Any protocols that inherit
>>>> >> from a
>>>> >> sealed protocol or classes that inherit from a sealed class would also
>>>> >> be
>>>> >> implicitly sealed (if we didn’t do this the sealing of the
>>>> >> superprotocol /
>>>> >> superclass could be violated by conforming to or inheriting from a
>>>> >> subprotocol / subclass).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Here are examples that I would like to see be valid:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> protocol P {}
>>>> >> // alternatively public sealed protocol P {}
>>>> >> struct P1: P {}
>>>> >> struct P2: P {}
>>>> >>
>>>> >> func p(p: P) -> Int {
>>>> >> switch p {
>>>> >> case is P1: return 1 // alternatively an `as` cast
>>>> >> case is P2: return 2 // alternatively an `as` cast
>>>> >> }
>>>> >> }
>>>> >>
>>>> >> class C {}
>>>> >> // alternatively public sealed class C {}
>>>> >> class C1: C {}
>>>> >> class C2: C {}
>>>> >>
>>>> >> func c(c: C) -> Int {
>>>> >> switch c {
>>>> >> case is C1: return 1 // alternatively an `as` cast
>>>> >> case is C2: return 2 // alternatively an `as` cast
>>>> >> case is C: return 0 // alternatively an `as` cast
>>>> >> }
>>>> >> }
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I am wondering if this is something the community is interested in. If
>>>> >> so, I am wondering if this is something that might be possible in the
>>>> >> Swift
>>>> >> 3 timeframe (maybe just for private and internal protocols and classes)
>>>> >> or
>>>> >> if it should wait for Swift 4 (this is likely the case).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -Matthew
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> >> swift-evolution@swift.org
>>>> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> > swift-evolution@swift.org
>>>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
