On a re-read I am -1; I like the `associatedtype` keyword but didn’t realize there was no plan to let `typealias` be used within a protocol to as a convenience (and to preserve intent, and to improve the development experience when still figuring out an interface design).
I would prefer the new keyword and also adding/allowing one to add convenience typealiases within a protocol definition. I have not followed the discussion closely to know if there are difficult technical issues with permitting both `associatedtype` declarations and simple convenience `typealias` declarations within a protocol, or if the current proposal is simply making the possible-confusion argument; if there are legit technical issues then so be it, but if it’s just an argument-from-possible-confusion I think the price of clarity is dearer than it needs to be here. > On Jan 3, 2016, at 1:38 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Swift community, > > The review of "Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for > associated type declarations” begins now and runs through Wednesday, January > 6th. The proposal is available here: > > > 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> > > Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews > should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review > manager. > > What goes into a review? > > The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review > through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of > Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to > answer in your review: > > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to Swift? > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar > feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an 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
