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

Loïc Lecrenier loiclecrenier at icloud.com
Tue Dec 22 08:16:11 CST 2015

Agreed for requiredtype. But I am not convinced “associatedtype” belabors the relationship between the protocol and the requirements. 

The word “associated” is never used as a replacement for “requirement”. It just names what the requirement is.
“[protocol] can only be used as a generic constraint because it has Self or __associated type requirements__”
“Grammar of a protocol __associated type__ declaration” (for comparison: “Grammar of a protocol __subscript__ declaration”)

(Counterpoint: maybe “associated” was only used there to avoid saying “type requirements/declaration”, which would be confusing)

I am now totally fine with “type”. But I am still afraid that it will be recycled elsewhere for a completely different purpose. Maybe that’s what you alluded to with “if we could make type work”? 

Anyway, it’s the holidays, and I don’t want to bother people with work. I think I will modify the proposal with a link to this discussion instead of “Community Responses”, and we’ll have three days right after the holidays to make a final choice :-)


PS: here is the result of a survey asking developers which keyword they prefer: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-7L7WMQ3J/
2 people (out of 100) chose “other” and specified “type”. Sadly it wasn’t presented as an option, sorry :(

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 3:56 AM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> Yeah, if we could make 'type' work I'd prefer that too. None of our other protocol requirement declarations specifically call out the fact that they're protocol requirements, so it feels a bit weird to use a name like 'associatedtype' or 'requiredsomething' that belabors the relationship between the protocol and the requirement.
> -Joe

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list