Type declarations in protocols / protocols as namespaces?

[Jens]

Just an attempt to see if it can be clarified what this means. I think I'll need someone to spell it out for me in a terser way .

The thread that the above quote is from is originally about nesting protocols inside other types:

@taylorswift

is there a reason why it’s not allowed to nest a protocol declaration
inside another type?

I'm asking about the opposite:

@Jens

NOTE: I'm not asking about
nesting protocols in structs, classes, enums or protocols,
I'm only asking about
nesting structs, classes and enums in protocols.

I think that separates this question from some of the previous discussions I've looked at.

---

However, @Slava_Pestov's post that you quoted above, does seem to answer my question as it addresses the case of nesting struct/enum/class inside protocols, but I'm not sure I understand what the conclusion is :

@Slava_Pestov

so in general we can only allow types nested inside protocols to be seen as members of conforming types, and not of the existential type.

Note that all of the above applies equally well to nested type aliases as well as nested nominal types. We already worked out most of the edge cases for nested type aliases so allowing nominals to be nested inside protocols won't be a big step.

Does this mean that it won't be a big step to allow struct/enum/class nested inside protocols?

(That is, type declarations in protocols / protocols as namespaces?)