<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Unless <b class="">typestandin, </b><b class="">typeplaceholder, </b>or <b class="">adoptedtype</b> are placed on the table, I don't really see any reason to introduce a keyword other than <b class="">associatedtype </b>for this proposal. </div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">+1. associatedtype seems better than any other option I’ve seen thus far (including the new ones you mentioned).</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">If the language construct is called an “associated type,” then introducing a keyword that uses any terminology other than “associated” is a recipe for eternal community confusion.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I could go for associatedtype, associated_type, or associated — but I agree that anything else, including typealias, seems inferior.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">P</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>