If I understand the Associated Types (I wouldn't be surprised if I have it all wrong), don't they really define Types used as, in standard English, "components", or "elements" of the protocol? If so, the problem is that the words "component" and "element" are already used for other things.
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > > Is there a some reason I am missing why *type* or associated* are better > keyword fits? > > The main reason to use `associated` is because the feature is called an > "associated type". If we're willing to rename the feature to "placeholder > type", then `placeholder` would be a good keyword. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > 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
