> On Dec 1, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Ben Langmuir via swift-evolution 
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> Hey Doug,
> I'm very much in favour of reducing the scope of associated type inference.  
> Can you outline why you believe that (3) is necessary?  If I am following 
> correctly, if we had (1) and (2) the only thing you'd need to add to the 
> "minimal collection" implementation would be a typealias for `Element`, which 
> seems reasonable to me.
> Ben

If nothing else, dropping (3) would be source breaking for 90%+ of current 
associated type uses. Whereas even the very minimal inference in (3) probably 
brings that figure down to 1% or so (outside of the stdlib, which would need to 
adopt a bunch of (2)). Obviously these percentages are just my guesses and not 
based on any real survey, but certainly would be the case for all Swift code 
I’ve seen.

        - Greg
swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to