<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 16, 2016, at 11:20 PM, Andrew Bennett <<a href="mailto:cacoyi@gmail.com" class="">cacoyi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Big +1 on this proposal from me.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Does this proposal allow a protocol can have generic associated types?<div class=""><ul class=""><li class=""><span style="font-family:monospace,monospace" class="">associatedtype Something<T></span><br class=""></li><li class=""><span style="font-family:monospace,monospace" class="">associatedtype Something<T: Hashable></span></li></ul></div></div>It's not mentioned, but I think it would be necessary at some point for completeness.</div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>This would fall under the "higher-kinded types" umbrella.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Joe</div><br class=""></body></html>