>> I did see that point made earlier in the thread, but I’m not convinced that >> design for googleability is the right ordering of priorities. > +1 > Choosing cryptic names because it's easier to find information about them is > bad. With this argument, you can not only fight against removal of the > NextStep prefix (Data, Number, Date… try googling that), but also demand that > the language should be spelled "Sweeft", and that framework functions should > loose their meaningful names and get called by a UUID instead.
I don't think the `associated` keyword is cryptic; I think it's *specific*. "Associated type" is the name of this feature. We tried bikeshedding it upthread, and didn't come up with anything better. If you're going to use a keyword related to the name "associated type", that leaves you with `associated`, `type`, or `associatedtype`. Of these three, `type` is extremely vague (and also something we've resisted taking as a keyword—see the discussion about `SomeType.self` last week), `associatedtype` is an overlong, awkward concatenation of two words, and `associated` has neither of those failings. That's why I favor it. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
