SE-0346: Lightweight same-type requirements for primary associated types

[Tino]

@Slava_Pestov

@John_McCall writes in [Pitch 2] Light-weight same-type requirement syntax - #180 by John_McCall

I knew that, so it looks like I didn't make my point clear enough.
There is also

@John_McCall

There are other reasonable and available spellings for that concept if we decide we want it, such as (T,U) : Convertible . Thus we’re not talking about ruling the feature out completely; we’re talking about the practical consequences of using this particular spelling.

which feels absurd. For me, it would make more sense to rule out generic protocols once and forever rather than introducing a brand new syntax because the obvious spelling is used for something else.
Generic classes use angle brackets, generic structs use angle brackets, generic enums use angle brackets, generic functions use angle brackets — but generic protocols should be written in a completely different way?

That would be more confusing than not having the feature at all, and I wish we would be more decisive instead of stirring false hopes.