

Swift: Simple, Safe, Inflexible - aaronbrager
https://medium.com/@getaaron/swift-simple-safe-inflexible-68ff6fa927dc

======
Someone
_" Allow required initializers in extensions, and require subclasses to
implement these initializers (even if they just call super)"_

Is that possible? The subclass could live in your application, and the
extension method in a plug-in that isn't known to the application (needn't
even be on the system or _exist_ when you launch the application)

That may work, but I would have to think hard about all kinds of weird
scenarios before being sure of it.

~~~
smosher_
At some point you'll end up with breakage unless doing this _causes_ the
subclasses to implement the initializer with super (if not already present),
not just require it. I don't really like that, but it might actually work.

You shouldn't really get to mess with someone else's implementation... that's
partly what subclassing is for and that's where it should get fixed. I'm not
really familiar with the barrier here since Swift isn't available on my
platform, but I can't think of a reason for it to be such a problem, unlike
the the other road.

