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