[Accepted] SE-0402: Generalize `conformance` macros as `extension` macros

[s-k (Stephen Kockentiedt)]

Was there any discussion regarding this point?

@Douglas_Gregor

We could allow the same prefixed(X) and suffixed(X) forms in the conformances list that we do for names, so one can generate a protocol and a conformance to it together, with a name derived from the entity to which the macro is attached.

I believe that accepting the proposal as is would block this possibility from being a future direction, because the conformance names are currently listed directly under conformances instead of being embedded in named(…) as it is for names.