[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Accepted] SE-0011 Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

[Chris Lattner]

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 9, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Kevin Ballard via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> In the previous thread on this topic, there was a lot of bikeshedding about the specific keyword. A bunch of people (myself included) suggested just "associated" instead, some people suggested a few alternatives (like "type" or "associated type"). I don't recall if anyone actually explicitly said they prefer the given name "associatedtype", though there were of course people who voted +1 without opining on the subject at all.
>> 
>> In any case, my point is, given that this proposal is now accepted, are we committed to the keyword "associatedtype" or is there still room to pick a different keyword? Enough people in the thread were in favor of using a different keyword that it seems worth considering.
> 
> Yes, associatedtype is what we’re planning to go with.  We discussed the keyword used carefully, and there was a lot of discussion/bikeshedding about the keyword on the mailing lists.
> 
> Here are a few things I remember from the discussion and the core team perspective, but this is definitely not exhaustive of all the discuss.
> 
> “type": Overly general, implies a declaration kind that could be used in other places in the language.  Associated types are a very specific kind of type, not a general type.
> 
> “associated”: Ok on the face of it, but problematic because declarations should be nouns and it isn’t “googlable”.

The meta-problem with associated is this:

protocol Foo {
  associated Bar
}

because it is so general and not googlable (and also an advanced feature that all swift users aren’t expected to memorize) it is difficult to find out what is going on here. 

-Chris