> On Feb 20, 2017, at 10:44 PM, Dimitri Racordon via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> 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 members while the > others can be used on other entities (protocols, structures, ...). > This asymmetry adds to the complexity of an `open` access level.
Really? Three sentences presenting an unsupported opinion? SE-0117[1], which proposed the `open` access modifier, spent approximately 1,080 words explaining why adding `open` was a good idea. If you are serious about removing `open`, I would strongly suggest you read that explanation and prepare a similarly well-reasoned and well-supported explanation of why you think removing `open` is a good idea. [1] https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0117-non-public-subclassable-by-default.md -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
