> 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
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
