[swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations
hello at alexpopov.ca
Thu Jan 7 18:13:02 CST 2016
Data of 1: I am disappointed by the choice, but remain silent so I don't look like a nit picker and to not further clutter the mailing list.
I find `associatedtype` to be clearer, but `associated` to be much more pleasant to read and write.
* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1 for the proposal, I didn't know associated types in protocols where even a thing, I just thought it was black-typealias-magic that was out of my intellectual reach.
* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
I do believe this proposal fits well with Swift, regardless of keyword chosen.
* If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
I have been following the proposal from the start, and have read up on Associated Types in protocols.
Alex Popov Jr.
Principal iOS developer | Shelfie
www.shelfie.com | @getshelfie
From: Tino Heth via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 15:22
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations
To: Erica Sadun <erica at ericasadun.com>
Cc: Swift Evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>
sorry for the late reaction — but I've been busy writing code instead of emails ;-)
> 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 hope I could clear up some misunderstandings in the answer to Chris (no conspiracy theory here ;-) and that you don't have the impression I'm accusing you for the poll (I consider it to be an act of pure kindness).
Maybe you even agree with me partially about the potential dangers of surveys:
I still wonder why no one complained that "associated" wasn't chosen, despite being the most popular option. Sure, some may have changed their mind, but even now, there are people saying they prefer that discarded possibility.
I can think of four possible explanations for this observation (all of them with a share of "the actual keyword is so unimportant, I don't really care"):
- all changed their mind (great — everyone is happy)
- participants lost their interest and have never seen the final proposal
- participants are disappointed by the choice, but remain silent because they don't want to look like nitpickers
- participants are disappointed by the choice, but remain silent because they lost faith in the process
I guess the last one is to dramatic to be real (I've been referring to the community process; I never had much faith in polls ;-), but the first is the only one that leaves no sour taste...
To quash possible rumors: I personally do my nitpicking loud and proud, and I didn't start this tiny meta-discussion in frustration — as long as I only have to use the word with working autocompletion, "associatedtype" is fine for me ;-)
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution