[swift-users] Associatedtype Naming Conventions

[Slava Pestov]

Can you give an example of a problematic name collision? Does fully qualifying names not help?

Slava

> On May 31, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Steven Brunwasser via swift-users <swift-users at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a library which uses a few generic protocols with identically named associated types that may not always be specified identically by implementors.
> 
> 	protocol Foo {
> 		associatedtype Container
> 		associatedtype Element
> 	}
> 
> 	protocol Bar {
> 		associatedtype Container
> 		associatedtype Element
> 	}
> 
> 	struct Baz: Foo, Bar {
> 		// Implement using two different Container/Element types.
> 	}
> 
> Is there a consensus on some naming convention for associatedtypes to mitigate name collisions?
> Would it be acceptable to add namespace prefixes to these types?
> 
> 	protocol Foo {
> 		associatedtype FooContainer
> 		associatedtype FooElement
> 	}
> 
> I’m using the dictionary and thesaurus to find some alternative names I could use, but the ones already used are so the most sensical semantically.
> 
> Do you have any suggestions?
> 
> Thanks, 
> - Steve Brunwasser
> _______________________________________________
> swift-users mailing list
> swift-users at swift.org <mailto:swift-users at swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-users/attachments/20170531/f93b45b8/attachment.html>