Hi Austin,
I also think it's better to make associated types explicit in protocol
conformance. But I'm not sure the requirement to use the `associatedtype`
keyword on the conformance site is the right way to do so, especially since you
haven't addressed how nested types could fulfill associated type requirements
in the new design:
extension Foo : P {
struct A { ... }
}
— Pyry
> Austin Zheng wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Per Chris Lattner's list of open Swift 3 design topics
> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/21369), I've put
> together a proposal for removing type inference for associated types.
>
> It can be found here:
> https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/az-assoctypeinf/proposals/XXXX-remove-assoctype-inference.md
>
> Thoughts, criticism, and feedback welcome. There are at least two slightly
> different designs in the proposal, and I'm sure people will have ideas for
> even more.
>
> Best,
> Austin
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
