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

[James Campbell]

I think we should use "placeholder" it more accurately describes what it
does. For a bigger change then I would propose my protocol generics idea.

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Pierre Monod-Broca via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> +1 for `type`, it is consistent with `func`, `var` and `init`. It looks
> good to me.
>
> eg:
>
> protocol Stream {
>     type Payload
>     var ready: Bool { get }
>     func read() -> Payload?
> }
>
> protocol Collection {
>     type Element
>     var count: Int { get }
>     func contains(element: Element) -> Bool
> }
>
>
> --
> Pierre
>
> Le 19 déc. 2015 à 18:46, Loïc Lecrenier via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> a écrit :
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>


-- 
 Wizard
james at supmenow.com
+44 7523 279 698
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20151223/eb9fb8a9/attachment.html>