[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