We also know that the current situation isn’t acceptable to a great proposition 
of the community, that is why we are still discussing the issue!

A notable example of reversal of an evolution decision is String’s conformance 
to Collection. Which I think on the 2nd attempt was a much better decision. 

For requiring typedefs for associated types, a fix it and error would be quite 
successful, e.g. Xcode already suggests the typedefs (which I currently accept 
before letting Xcode insert blanks for the missing methods etc.).

-- Howard. 

> On 3 Dec 2017, at 8:15 am, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution 
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> Definitely in favour of doing something, I always define the associated 
>> types since I have had so much trouble with the inference.
>> Personally I would prefer just 1 and 2 and forget 3. I know this would break 
>> a lot of code, but I think we should do that because it is the lesser of the 
>> evils.
> As Doug wrote, an approach that's essentially that was reviewed and rejected 
> in SE-0108. We already know that it's not acceptable to a great proportion of 
> the community.
swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to