> On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com
> <mailto:rjmcc...@apple.com>> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:54 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Vladimir.S <sva...@gmail.com
>> > <mailto:sva...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > How about `public(extensible)` ?
>>
>> Hmm. I started to work out an example with these as separate modifiers, and
>> I think I understand the need to combine them in some way.
>>
>> I wonder if just "extensible" would be good enough. It is a term that's
>> used in API descriptions.
>>
>> This particular word is unfortunate because it has nothing to do with an
>> extension, which shares the same etymological root.
>
> I agree, but I'm not sure that it's particularly confusing in practice.
>
> Why not just "inheritable"? That is, after all, what we mean, no?
All class methods are intrinsically inheritable. A non-inheritable method
would *require* an override.
John.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
