+1 for associated On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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. > > +1 > > Choosing cryptic names because it's easier to find information about > them is bad. With this argument, you can not only fight against removal of > the NextStep prefix (Data, Number, Date… try googling that), but also > demand that the language should be spelled "Sweeft", and that framework > functions should loose their meaningful names and get called by a UUID > instead. > > I don't think the `associated` keyword is cryptic; I think it's > *specific*. "Associated type" is the name of this feature. We tried > bikeshedding it upthread, and didn't come up with anything better. If > you're going to use a keyword related to the name "associated type", that > leaves you with `associated`, `type`, or `associatedtype`. Of these three, > `type` is extremely vague (and also something we've resisted taking as a > keyword—see the discussion about `SomeType.self` last week), > `associatedtype` is an overlong, awkward concatenation of two words, and > `associated` has neither of those failings. That's why I favor it. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > -- Wizard [email protected] +44 7523 279 698
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
