> On Jan 2, 2016, at 22:38, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
Taking an example from the swift source to compare an alternative, `type`, we
have
public protocol _CollectionWrapperType : _SequenceWrapperType {
associatedtype Base : CollectionType
associatedtype Index : ForwardIndexType = Self.Base.Index
}
vs
public protocol _CollectionWrapperType : _SequenceWrapperType {
type Base : CollectionType
type Index : ForwardIndexType = Self.Base.Index
}
I think the version with `associatedtype` is a bit verbose, but that doesn’t
seem like a big problem. It might read a little more clearly as well. I
wouldn’t be unhappy with either of these alternatives, but `associatedtype`
seems like a good choice.
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change
> to Swift?
Yes. I think it `typealias` should be used only as the swift equivalent of a C
typedef.
> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
Yes, because we want to improve readability and understandability.
> * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar
> feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
I haven’t used another language with this feature.
> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
> reading, or an in-depth study?
In depth study.
>
> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
>
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md
> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md>
>
> Cheers,
> Doug Gregor
> Review Manager
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
