+1 from me including the preference for "associated" instead of "associatedtype"
-Thorsten Am 03.01.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Alex Migicovsky via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org>: >> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? > > I think the proposal is great. The only thing I’d prefer is to use > `associated` over `associatedtype`. > > `associated` has always felt better to me over `associatedtype`. It was > mentioned in one of the original proposals as the keyword that was initially > most well received as well—I think this is because it just feels right, which > is a good indicator even though it doesn’t seem scientific :-) > > One downside mentioned is that `associated` is more vague than > `associatedtype`, but there’s a reason why we don’t have `protocoltype`, > `classtype`, etc as keywords over `protocol` and `class`. I think the > convention of having associated type names start with an uppercase letter > makes it clear that what follows `associated` is a type (or will be a > concrete type). > >> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to >> Swift? > > Yes, I’ve seen many developers be confused by the difference between defining > a typealias inside a protocol declaration vs outside. > >> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > > Yes. > >> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, >> or an in-depth study? > > I’ve been paying attention to the thread and have thought about why I like > `associated` over `associatedtype` since the start of the thread. > > - Alex > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
