> On Jul 9, 2016, at 11:04 AM, Tino Heth <2...@gmx.de> wrote: > > >> Of course it can be done either way. But there are significant ecosystem >> robustness advantages to making sealed the default and comparatively few >> downsides. Most libraries are open source (so can be modified directly or >> via PR if necessary) > First: > The claim about robustness sounds like a fact, despite being just an opinion > (feel free to correct me if you have any evidence at all). We should stay > honest with our predictions. > Second: > Do you really believe there will be positive impact on open-source libraries? > My forecast is that closed by default will dramatically increase trivial pull > request where developers ask for unsealing so that they can do as they like…
I think this is a good thing. It will force a considered answer and a discussion about whether or not subclassing should be supported by the library. > and I've no idea why somebody could come up with the idea that forking is > desirable. Forking is desirable if your goals, needs, values, etc are substantially different than the library author such that you do not agree on what the API contract should look like. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
