Can you give an example of a problematic name collision? Does fully qualifying
names not help?
Slava
> On May 31, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Steven Brunwasser via swift-users
> <swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a library which uses a few generic protocols with identically named
> associated types that may not always be specified identically by implementors.
>
> protocol Foo {
> associatedtype Container
> associatedtype Element
> }
>
> protocol Bar {
> associatedtype Container
> associatedtype Element
> }
>
> struct Baz: Foo, Bar {
> // Implement using two different Container/Element types.
> }
>
> Is there a consensus on some naming convention for associatedtypes to
> mitigate name collisions?
> Would it be acceptable to add namespace prefixes to these types?
>
> protocol Foo {
> associatedtype FooContainer
> associatedtype FooElement
> }
>
> I’m using the dictionary and thesaurus to find some alternative names I could
> use, but the ones already used are so the most sensical semantically.
>
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> - Steve Brunwasser
> _______________________________________________
> swift-users mailing list
> swift-users@swift.org <mailto:swift-users@swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users>
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
