Any change here would have to go through the Swift Evolution Process.

This is a general problem with naming collisions between protocols. We could provide an attribute to let you satisfy a requirement with a different name, e.g.:

class C: A, B {
    @implements(A.T)
    typealias AT = String
    @implements(B.T)
    typealias BT = Int
    var aT = String()
    var bT = Int()
}

Comment by Noah Blake (JIRA)

Thanks for your feedback. Actually, it's very similar to what I had in mind.

In the case that I described, it should also be possible for the user to omit

@implements(A.T)
typealias AT = String
@implements(B.T)
typealias BT = Int

The compiler, using type inferencing, would simply sugar it in. In fact, I'm hoping the user probably will only need to use the new attribute you've proposed in rare cases.

For what it's worth, I've also tried to begin a discussion through the [mailing list](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160404/014209.html).