Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Michael Henson via swift-evolution <[email protected]> wrote: >> 1) Do you agree about using “associatedtype”? >> 2) If not, which keyword would you prefer to use? why? (you can introduce a >> new one) > > There is another alternative. Rather than trying to come up with another > brand-new keyword, we can re-use one that has an existing and appropriate > meaning: required. > > Example: > > protocol ExampleProtocol { > required typealias Element > typealias MethodSignature = (arg: Element) -> Bool > > ... etc > } > > It's a little more verbose at the point of use but the declarations are > relatively uncommon and this usage is clearly separate from regular typealias > declarations. > I don't link this as it's not entirely accurate. Associated types are somewhat different than typealiases and are often inferred, not declared in the conforming types. > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
