I did see that point made earlier in the thread, but I’m not convinced that design for googleability is the right ordering of priorities. I think people will probably figure out that they need to search for “swift protocol type” or whatever the final choice ends up being.
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 20:54, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don’t see any problem in referring to the feature as associated types, but >> then having the syntax be just plain “type”. > > I think it's been said before, but the problem with using a `type` keyword is > that if you type "swift type" into Google (or any other search feature you > might use for documentation), you're probably not going to get information > about this feature specifically. "swift associated" or "swift associatedtype" > are more likely to give you what you want. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
