> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? I think it's a great idea. The shift in meaning when you use `typealias` in a protocol is enormous—not only is an associated type far more different from a typealias than most protocol requirements, but it also changes the way you can use the protocol itself—and sharing a keyword gives you no hint of that. It also means that you can't search the documentation for the keyword to understand what it means. Switching to an `associatedtype` keyword fixes these issues.
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to Swift? Absolutely. I have seen nothing but confusion surrounding the use of associated types in protocols, and anything that might clear that up is a great idea. > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? Yes. Swift typically doesn't shy away from introducing new keywords to accurately capture semantics, and that's what `associatedtype` does. > * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar > feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? I have not used any such languages. > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? I've participated in some of the discussions of this proposal, particularly the discussion of alternative keywords. There I advocated `associated`, but I will admit that `associatedtype` is slightly clearer. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
