Re: [swift-users] Associatedtype Naming Conventions

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

Re: [swift-users] Associatedtype Naming Conventions

> On May 31, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Steven Brunwasser 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.

Re: [swift-users] Associatedtype Naming Conventions

By fully qualifying names, do you mean something like this? struct Baz: Foo, Bar { typealias Foo.Container = A typealias Bar.Container = B } This seems to be invalid, at least in Swift 3.1. Basically, my library contains a bunch of collection-like protocols, which can be combined in different

Re: [swift-users] Associatedtype Naming Conventions

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 > wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a library which uses a few generic protocols with identically named >

[swift-users] Associatedtype Naming Conventions

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