And what are your feelings about: typestandin, typeplaceholder, or adoptedtype? How would you describe the functionality of these members if you weren't looking for a keyword?
-- E > On Dec 23, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:08 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >>>> 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 the three, I prefer “associatedtype”. > > We already have precedent for concatenated names in a very related sort of > decl (typealias), and this will be a real keyword. > > > Here are how I see the pros and cons I see of these options: > > type: > - Overly short, particularly given the infrequency of these decls, the common > case of “type Element” will be weird floating around given its lack of weight. > - Overly unclear. This is a very specific kind of type, not a generic type > you can use in other contexts. > - Unfortunate keyword. Among other things it would make writing compilers in > swift a pain :-), but again, people would want to use this in other places. > > associated: > - Vacuous: doesn’t mean anything on its own: “associated Element”. > - Somewhat unfortunate as a keyword, but much less so than type. > > associatedtype: > - Clean in context: “associatedtype Element” > - Obvious you wouldn’t want to use it in another context. > - Googlable, unambiguous > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
