[swift-users] Associatedtype Naming Conventions

[Steven Brunwasser]

Yes, I understand this. I was just wondering if there was a naming
convention I should use to differentiate them.

Should I use a few letters as a prefix? Should I use the full protocol name
as a prefix? Or is there another suggestion for a naming convention?

I'm also curious about any naming conventions I should use to get around
collisions with other libraries' protocol associatedtypes.

On May 31, 2017 at 16:26:52, Slava Pestov (spestov at apple.com) wrote:

>
> On May 31, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Steven Brunwasser <sbrunwasser at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Basically, my library contains a bunch of collection-like protocols, which
> can be combined in different ways and can be compatible with each other in
> certain combinations when the proper types align. Naturally, they all have
> an Element associatedtype, but I need to allow for the possibility where
> two of these collection protocols are implemented in the same structure
> that requires different type definitions for each protocols' Element.
>
>
> Oh, I understand now. This is intentionally not supported — associated
> types with the same name from different protocols must all be implemented
> by the same typealias in the conforming type.
>
> Slava
>
>
> I’ve been trying to make some other protocols to simplify some
> definitions, but specifying a parent protocol’s associated type within a
> child protocol doesn’t seem to work.
>
> protocol Buzz: Bar {
> typealias Container = A
> }
>
> struct BuzzImpl: Buzz {} // *error: type ‘BuzzImpl' does not conform to
> protocol ‘Buzz'*
>
> On May 31, 2017 at 4:02:43 PM, Slava Pestov (spestov at apple.com) wrote:
>
> 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
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-users/attachments/20170531/2a8bc067/attachment.html>