I… like this syntax but I have to admit that I am confused about
```protocol IntSequence : Sequence where Iterator.Element == Int {
    ...
}
```
I think that this example needs a better subtype/subprotocol to motivate
the feature. This particular type seems more like a constrained typealias
example to me. An example that I think might work is

```protocol FloatingPointSignal : Sequence where Iterator.Element == Double
{
    var sampleRate: Double
    ...
}
```
because there is behavior/state to add in the subprotocol.



On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> Hello mailing list,
>
> Since the following proposal was discussed before the release of Swift 3
> and then delayed, I’m opening it up again for a short pre-review before to
> get some additional feedback before it can be merged.
>
> Web link: https://github.com/hartbit/swift-evolution/blob/
> 4107087d82eacc35538f5af0d97ffb80dfa4f998/proposals/XXXX-
> associated-types-constraints.md
>
> Permit where clauses to constrain associated types
>
>    - Proposal: SE-NNNN
>    
> <https://github.com/hartbit/swift-evolution/blob/4107087d82eacc35538f5af0d97ffb80dfa4f998/proposals/NNNN-associated-types-constraints.md>
>    - Authors: David Hart <https://github.com/hartbit>, Jacob Bandes-Storch
>    <https://github.com/jtbandes>, Doug Gregor
>    <https://github.com/DougGregor>
>    - Review Manager: TBD
>    - Status: Awaiting review
>
>
> <https://github.com/hartbit/swift-evolution/blob/4107087d82eacc35538f5af0d97ffb80dfa4f998/proposals/XXXX-associated-types-constraints.md#introduction>
> Introduction
>
> This proposal seeks to introduce a where clause to associated type
> declarations and improvements to protocol constraints to bring associated
> types the same expressive power as generic type parameters.
>
> This proposal was discussed twice on the Swift Evolution list in the
> following threads:
>
>    - [Completing Generics] Arbitrary requirements in protocols
>    
> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160411/014667.html>
>    - [Proposal] More Powerful Constraints for Associated Types
>       - Week #1
>       
> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160418/015625.html>
>       - Week #2
>       
> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160425/015753.html>
>       - Week #3
>       
> <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160502/016354.html>
>
>
> <https://github.com/hartbit/swift-evolution/blob/4107087d82eacc35538f5af0d97ffb80dfa4f998/proposals/XXXX-associated-types-constraints.md#motivation>
> Motivation
>
> Currently, associated type declarations can only express simple
> inheritance constraints and not the more sophisticated constraints
> available to generic types with the where clause. Some designs, including
> many in the Standard Library, require more powerful constraints for
> associated types to be truly elegant. For example, the SequenceType protocol
> could be declared as follows if the current proposal was accepted:
>
> protocol Sequence {
>     associatedtype Iterator : IteratorProtocol
>     associatedtype SubSequence : Sequence where SubSequence.Iterator.Element 
> == Iterator.Element
>     ...
> }
>
>
> <https://github.com/hartbit/swift-evolution/blob/4107087d82eacc35538f5af0d97ffb80dfa4f998/proposals/XXXX-associated-types-constraints.md#detailed-design>Detailed
> Design
>
> First of all, this proposal modifies the grammar for a protocol's
> associated types to the following:
>
> *protocol-associated-type-declaration* → *attributesopt*
> *access-level-modifieropt* associatedtype *typealias-name* ­
> *type-inheritance-clause­opt* *typealias-assignment­opt*
> *requirement-clauseopt*
>
> The new requirement-clause is then used by the compiler to validate the
> associated types of conforming types.
>
> Secondly, the proposal also allows protocols to use the associated types
> of their conforming protocols in their declaration where clause as below:
>
> protocol IntSequence : Sequence where Iterator.Element == Int {
>     ...
> }
>
> Name lookup semantics in the protocol declaration where clause only looks
> at associated types in the parent protocols. For example, the following
> code would cause an error:
>
> protocol SomeSequence : Sequence where Counter : SomeProtocol { // error: Use 
> of undefined associated type 'Counter'
>     associatedtype Counter
> }
>
> But instead should be written on the associated type itself:
>
> protocol IntSequence : Sequence {
>     associatedtype Counter : SomeProtocol
> }
>
>
> <https://github.com/hartbit/swift-evolution/blob/4107087d82eacc35538f5af0d97ffb80dfa4f998/proposals/XXXX-associated-types-constraints.md#effect-on-abi-stability>Effect
> on ABI Stability
>
> As mentioned previously, there are a number of places in the standard
> library where this feature would be adopted (such as the
> SubSequence.Iterator.Element == Iterator.Element example), each of which
> will change the mangling of any generic function/type that makes use of
> them.
>
> <https://github.com/hartbit/swift-evolution/blob/4107087d82eacc35538f5af0d97ffb80dfa4f998/proposals/XXXX-associated-types-constraints.md#alternatives>
> Alternatives
>
> Douglas Gregor argues that the proposed syntax is redundant when adding
> new constraints to an associated type declared in a parent protocol and
> proposes another syntax:
>
> protocol Collection : Sequence {
>     where SubSequence : Collection
> }
>
> But as Douglas notes himself, that syntax is ambiguous since we adopted
> the generic where clause at the end of declarations of the following
> proposal: SE-0081: Move where clause to end of declaration
> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0081-move-where-expression.md>.
> For those reasons, it might be wiser not to introduce the shorthand syntax.
>
> <https://github.com/hartbit/swift-evolution/blob/4107087d82eacc35538f5af0d97ffb80dfa4f998/proposals/XXXX-associated-types-constraints.md#acknowledgements>
> Acknowledgements
> Thanks to Dave Abrahams and Douglas Gregor for taking the time to help me
> through this proposal.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to