<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 1, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Ben Langmuir via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class="">Hey Doug,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'm very much in favour of reducing the scope of associated type inference. Can you outline why you believe that (3) is necessary? If I am following correctly, if we had (1) and (2) the only thing you'd need to add to the "minimal collection" implementation would be a typealias for `Element`, which seems reasonable to me.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ben</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">If nothing else, dropping (3) would be source breaking for 90%+ of current associated type uses. Whereas even the very minimal inference in (3) probably brings that figure down to 1% or so (outside of the stdlib, which would need to adopt a bunch of (2)). Obviously these percentages are just my guesses and not based on any real survey, but certainly would be the case for all Swift code I’ve seen.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- Greg</div></body></html>