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

[Jacob Bandes-Storch]

Am I too late to throw in more off-the-cuff suggestions?

protocol SequenceType {
    having Generator
}

protocol SequenceType<having Generator> { }   // in the protocol signature,
but distinct from a generic param

protocol SequenceType<any Generator> // same idea


Jacob Bandes-Storch

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Kelly Gerber via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> I believe Scala uses just “type” for abstract type members. Is that too
> short? If too short, then how about “typemember”? Or perhaps “abstractype”?
>
> -Kelly
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I’m starting a new thread for this proposal
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0011-replace-typealias-associated.md
> >
> > So far, everybody agreed that using distinct keywords for type alias and
> associated type declarations is a good idea.
> > However, some people think that “associated” is not an ideal replacement
> because it is too vague.
> > I would like to choose a better keyword before the review, but I’m
> struggling to find a good replacement.
> >
> > So, here are some keywords that were proposed by the community.
> >
> > 1. associated_type
> > This is the original proposed keyword. It is extremely clear, but
> snake_cases are un-Swifty.
> >
> > 2. associatedtype (or typeassociation)
> > This was the first alternative to associated_type. Its purpose is still
> extremely clear.
> > I like it a lot, but it is a bit long and difficult to read.
> >
> > 3. associated
> > This is the keyword I chose for the proposal because it was the most
> well-received initially.
> > It is quite short, very different from “typealias", and sounds good.
> However, it is also vaguer.
> > Because the word “type” is not in it, it’s unclear what should follow
> it, and it’s unclear what it declares.
> > For example, one could think that it is an associated *value* and write
> > protocol FixedSizeCollectionProtocol {
> >       associated size : Int
> > }
> > Although honestly I doubt many people would write that.
> >
> > 4. withtype (or needstype)
> > It is short, somewhat easy to read, has the word “type” in it, and some
> concept of association thanks to “with”. I like it.
> > But it doesn’t sound very good, and is still vaguer than
> “associatedtype”.
> >
> > 5. type
> > This keyword was proposed by several people, but I strongly dislike it.
> > It conflicts with an other proposal about unifying the “static” and
> “class” keywords for type-level members.
> > I think the fact that it was proposed for two completely different
> purposes shows that it is too abstract.
> > It would make searching for help more difficult because of its bad
> googleability.
> >
> >
> > Personally, I would like to either keep “associated”, or use
> “associatedtype” because they are the most obvious choices.
> >
> > 1) Do you agree about using “associatedtype”?
> > 2) If not, which keyword would you prefer to use? why? (you can
> introduce a new one)
> > Bonus) Maybe some twitter-famous person could make a quick poll and see
> which one developers prefer? 😁 (after they read this email)
> > I would gladly do it myself, but I don’t think my twenty (mostly fake)
> followers will give me a lot of information.
> >
> > Loïc
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cd438018/attachment.html>