I would agree to stop talking about associated types and start talking about
placeholder types instead.
But as a keyword, IMO the problem is that `placeholder` is not appropriate to
define the implementation.
eg
class Foo: Stream {
placeholder Payload = String // IMO doesn't feel right
type Payload = String // IMO feels good
}
--
Pierre
> Le 23 déc. 2015 à 13:59, James Campbell <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> I think we should use "placeholder" it more accurately describes what it
> does. For a bigger change then I would propose my protocol generics idea.
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Pierre Monod-Broca via swift-evolution
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> +1 for `type`, it is consistent with `func`, `var` and `init`. It looks good
> to me.
>
> eg:
>
> protocol Stream {
> type Payload
> var ready: Bool { get }
> func read() -> Payload?
> }
>
> protocol Collection {
> type Element
> var count: Int { get }
> func contains(element: Element) -> Bool
> }
>
>
> --
> Pierre
>
>> Le 19 déc. 2015 à 18:46, Loïc Lecrenier via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I’m starting a new thread for this proposal
>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0011-replace-typealias-associated.md
>>
>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0011-replace-typealias-associated.md>
>>
>> So far, everybody agreed that using distinct keywords for type alias and
>> associated type declarations is a good idea.
>> However, some people think that “associated” is not an ideal replacement
>> because it is too vague.
>> I would like to choose a better keyword before the review, but I’m
>> struggling to find a good replacement.
>>
>> So, here are some keywords that were proposed by the community.
>>
>> 1. associated_type
>> This is the original proposed keyword. It is extremely clear, but
>> snake_cases are un-Swifty.
>>
>> 2. associatedtype (or typeassociation)
>> This was the first alternative to associated_type. Its purpose is still
>> extremely clear.
>> I like it a lot, but it is a bit long and difficult to read.
>>
>> 3. associated
>> This is the keyword I chose for the proposal because it was the most
>> well-received initially.
>> It is quite short, very different from “typealias", and sounds good.
>> However, it is also vaguer.
>> Because the word “type” is not in it, it’s unclear what should follow it,
>> and it’s unclear what it declares.
>> For example, one could think that it is an associated *value* and write
>> protocol FixedSizeCollectionProtocol {
>> associated size : Int
>> }
>> Although honestly I doubt many people would write that.
>>
>> 4. withtype (or needstype)
>> It is short, somewhat easy to read, has the word “type” in it, and some
>> concept of association thanks to “with”. I like it.
>> But it doesn’t sound very good, and is still vaguer than “associatedtype”.
>>
>> 5. type
>> This keyword was proposed by several people, but I strongly dislike it.
>> It conflicts with an other proposal about unifying the “static” and “class”
>> keywords for type-level members.
>> I think the fact that it was proposed for two completely different purposes
>> shows that it is too abstract.
>> It would make searching for help more difficult because of its bad
>> googleability.
>>
>>
>> Personally, I would like to either keep “associated”, or use
>> “associatedtype” because they are the most obvious choices.
>>
>> 1) Do you agree about using “associatedtype”?
>> 2) If not, which keyword would you prefer to use? why? (you can introduce a
>> new one)
>> Bonus) Maybe some twitter-famous person could make a quick poll and see
>> which one developers prefer? 😁 (after they read this email)
>> I would gladly do it myself, but I don’t think my twenty (mostly fake)
>> followers will give me a lot of information.
>>
>> Loïc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Wizard
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> +44 7523 279 698
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
