Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

1. What is your evaluation of the proposal? I think the proposal has merit. It seeks to clarify a possible confusing issue. I’m late to this issue, however, and perhaps because I read through everything in one go, but the keyword that came to me was “conformancetype”. We’re talking protocols

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

It seems no different to me than when "instancetype" was added to Objective C (though, that doesn't say anything for the 'Swiftiness' of it). Ross On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > I'm sure we're just bikeshedding at

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> On Jan 2, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > wrote: > > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? This definitely makes the two concepts much more easy to understand. Overloading the meanings is confusing. Separating them helps a lot.

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

What is your evaluation of the proposal? In favor. Overloading the meaning of “typealias” adds confusion to what is already a confusing feature of the language. The keyword “associatedtype” is much clearer — and much more searchable, helping newcomers to this feature discover the relevant

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> On Jan 6, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Loïc Lecrenier wrote: > >> Perhaps keyword capitalization conventions deserve some attention across the >> board. > > I thought the rules were: > - property/method: lowerCamelCase > - language keyword: lowercase > > I consider > -

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

I'm sure we're just bikeshedding at this point, but... I find "typealias" and "fallthrough" much easier to read, and easier to write, than "associatedtype". Upon further in(tro)spection, I think I'm reading typealias and fallthrough as compound words

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> > What about the all lower case “associatedtype”? The underscore alternative of > “associated_type” breaks existing language precedent. The camel case version > (“associatedType”) does have language precedent, and I wonder if it wouldn’t > be a better choice: > >dynamicType >didSet

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1 for changing the name, but -1 for "associatedtype" in particular. Alternate suggestions: - associatedType Element - associated_type Element - associated type Element - associated Element - type Element - having Element > Is the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

And of course it’s not like this is taking away functionality, just not adding it yet. So sure, +1, this is still forward progress. The fact it’s so easy to forget this other use of typealias doesn't really work in protocols right now is evidence enough for the proposal. Apologies for the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

On a re-read I am -1; I like the `associatedtype` keyword but didn’t realize there was no plan to let `typealias` be used within a protocol to as a convenience (and to preserve intent, and to improve the development experience when still figuring out an interface design). I would prefer the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> On a re-read I am -1; I like the `associatedtype` keyword but didn’t realize > there was no plan to let `typealias` be used within a protocol to as a > convenience (and to preserve intent, and to improve the development > experience when still figuring out an interface design). > > I would

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 2:49 PM, plx via swift-evolution > wrote: > > On a re-read I am -1; I like the `associatedtype` keyword but didn’t realize > there was no plan to let `typealias` be used within a protocol to as a > convenience (and to preserve intent, and to

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

- What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1 : I am all for the idea of not using the same word for different functionalities. I don’t see any upside to keeping it the way it is. - Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift? Description of Swift includes

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1, although I don’t like the name because it’s two normally non-compoundable words, compounded into one. A combination that would be more natural is something like “typeassociate” although that sounds quite silly to me. I suppose maybe

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> On Jan 2, 2016, at 22:38, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > wrote: > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? Taking an example from the swift source to compare an alternative, `type`, we have public protocol _CollectionWrapperType :

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

+1 from me too. (My vote takes into account the various alternatives were put on the table and weeded down thoughtfully to the one we're voting on.) -- E > On Jan 3, 2016, at 5:57 AM, T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution > wrote: > > +1 from me. It is a solid change

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

>> Swift has proven it can thrive in secrecy, so I don't think the whole open >> community is a necessity — but as it is now, we should hold transparency in >> high esteem and not start faking democracy. > > I’m confused, what are you saying? No decision has been made here, I’m not > aware

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

I'd argue that there's been such a big discussion because it's basically a bikeshed. This is an easy topic for everyone to understand so there's low barrier to entry, and it basically boils down to "what should we name this thing?" which is something everybody can easily form an opinion on.

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1, with caveats From a wording perspective, the “Proposed Approach” and “Impact on Existing Code” sections talk about removing typealias, while the intention is almost certainly to remove typealias usage within protocols only. My review

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

I like this. > On Jan 3, 2016, at 1:38 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Hello Swift community, > > The review of "Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for > associated type declarations” begins now and runs through Wednesday, January

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

+1 from me. It is a solid change that addresses an oddity in the language. On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:27 AM, plx via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > I like this. > > On Jan 3, 2016, at 1:38 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Hello

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

I'm not opposing the proposal, but I wonder why there has been such a big discussion (and a poll whose results have neither been revealed completely nor affected the choice of the keyword)… Swift has proven it can thrive in secrecy, so I don't think the whole open community is a necessity —

[swift-evolution] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

Hello Swift community, The review of "Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations” begins now and runs through Wednesday, January 6th. The proposal is available here: