[swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations
erica at ericasadun.com
Sun Jan 3 18:03:52 CST 2016
Why has there been such a big discussion? I suspect because this is an obvious win. There's less discussion of "should there be this change" and more of "how should this be changed". The relative lightweight nature of the latter inspires lots of input. When a topic gets more technical in nature, those who are heavily invested, with expertise in building compilers and with specialized knowledge of other languages, focus the discussion.
Turns out in the end that there was an underlying "term of art" (or however that is put) along with the descriptions in the book, so there never was going to probably be anything deeper than "associatedType", "associatedtype" or "associated", in my opinion.
Why secrecy? There is none. I was asked to run a poll. I ran a poll using the best information I had at the moment. I don't have money to spend on SurveyMonkey so it cut off at 100 replies. You can't see the extra replies. I can't see the extra replies. Even playing field.
-- Erica, who had no ulterior motives
> On Jan 3, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> I'm not opposing the proposal, but I wonder why there has been such a big discussion (and a poll whose results have neither been revealed completely nor affected the choice of the keyword)…
>> Swift has proven it can thrive in secrecy, so I don't think the whole open community is a necessity — but as it is now, we should hold transparency in high esteem and not start faking democracy.
> I’m confused, what are you saying? No decision has been made here, I’m not aware of any “secrecy” issue.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
More information about the swift-evolution