<div dir="ltr">If I understand the Associated Types (I wouldn't be surprised if I have it all wrong), don't they really define Types used as, in standard English, "components", or "elements" of the protocol? If so, the problem is that the words "component" and "element" are already used for other things.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> Is there a some reason I am missing why *type* or associated* are better keyword fits?<br>
<br>
</span>The main reason to use `associated` is because the feature is called an "associated type". If we're willing to rename the feature to "placeholder type", then `placeholder` would be a good keyword.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Brent Royal-Gordon<br>
Architechies<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>