> On Dec 19, 2015, at 12:17 PM, Michael Henson via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> 1) Do you agree about using “associatedtype”?
> 2) If not, which keyword would you prefer to use? why? (you can introduce a
> new one)
>
> There is another alternative. Rather than trying to come up with another
> brand-new keyword, we can re-use one that has an existing and appropriate
> meaning: required.
>
> Example:
>
> protocol ExampleProtocol {
> required typealias Element
> typealias MethodSignature = (arg: Element) -> Bool
>
> ... etc
> }
>
> It's a little more verbose at the point of use but the declarations are
> relatively uncommon and this usage is clearly separate from regular typealias
> declarations.
I think this is a big improvement over associatedtype, except that the type
that satisfies the requirement needn't be a typealias. I would therefore
prefer "requiredtype."
-Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
