<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi Austin,</div><div><br></div><div>I also think it's better to make associated types explicit in protocol conformance. But I'm not sure the requirement to use the `associatedtype` keyword on the conformance site is the right way to do so, especially since you haven't addressed how nested types could fulfill associated type requirements in the new design:</div><div><br></div><div> extension Foo : P {</div><div> struct A { ... }</div><div> }</div><div><br></div><div>— Pyry</div><div><br>Austin Zheng wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii">Hello all,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Per Chris Lattner's list of open Swift 3 design topics (<a href="http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/21369" class="">http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/21369</a>), I've put together a proposal for removing type inference for associated types.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It can be found here: <a href="https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/az-assoctypeinf/proposals/XXXX-remove-assoctype-inference.md" class="">https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/az-assoctypeinf/proposals/XXXX-remove-assoctype-inference.md</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thoughts, criticism, and feedback welcome. There are at least two slightly different designs in the proposal, and I'm sure people will have ideas for even more.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class="">Austin</div></div></blockquote></body></html>