> On 22 déc. 2015, at 19:01, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Dec 22, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Matt Whiteside via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> “parameter” is a good thought. On it’s own it seems like it’s missing >> something though. But it gives me other ideas: “typeparam”, “type param", >> “typeparameter”, or “type parameter”. > > > It’s not a parameter, though, because it does not vary the way a parameter > does: a given type X cannot conform to a protocol with two different bindings > for a given associated type.
Well, in the context of a generic function or generic type, we have “type parameter” and “generic parameter clauses”. Is a protocol's associated type truly so different that it requires a different name? Note that many people out there are calling a protocol-with-associated-type a “generic protocol”. Cheers, Guillaume Lessard _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
