[swift-evolution] [SE-0011] Re-considering the replacement keyword for "typealias"

Matthew Johnson musical.matthew at mac.com
Sat Dec 19 14:36:41 CST 2015

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 19, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Michael Henson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>> 1) Do you agree about using “associatedtype”?
>> 2) If not, which keyword would you prefer to use? why? (you can introduce a new one)
> There is another alternative. Rather than trying to come up with another brand-new keyword, we can re-use one that has an existing and appropriate meaning: required.
> Example:
> protocol ExampleProtocol {
>   required typealias Element
>   typealias MethodSignature = (arg: Element) -> Bool
>   ... etc
> }
> It's a little more verbose at the point of use but the declarations are relatively uncommon and this usage is clearly separate from regular typealias declarations.

I don't link this as it's not entirely accurate.  Associated types are somewhat different than typealiases and are often inferred, not declared in the conforming types.

> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20151219/da1d0062/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list