How are generics 'fuzzy at best'? I can understand why you could think that associated types in protocols can be a pain in the ass, but there are reasons why its done this way.
Sorry was generalizing. I meant generics and protocols in combination. The ability to define a protocol based on a generic would be fantastic. It's something that is solved in Haskell fairly well.
Isn't that somewhat possible with extensions and constraints? At least that was the impression given by last year's WWDC talk [1], unless you're thinking of something else?
