> Le 31 mai 2024 à 18:08, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> a écrit : > > So we feel the best way forward is to make the following changes: > > * private(set) implicitly means "final". (You can declare it explicitly if > you want, but it isn't necessary.) > * Make readonly incompatible with aviz again. > > Thoughts?
After reflection, I don’t think that we need to make readonly incompatible with aviz, even with the current semantics of readonly (at least logically; no idea about implementationally): * legacy-readonly properties could keep their own peculiar `private-overridable(set)` if they want; * aviz-readonly properties have, by definition, one of `public(set)`, `protected(set)` or `private(set)` marker; those will work regularly, including the implicit `final` attached to `private(set)`; * a non-aviz readonly property could not be redeclared in a subclass as aviz-readonly, and vice versa. —Claude
