Associated types in RPC traits

[gavofyork]

No description provided.

[rphmeier]

The ASSOCIATED type is strange to me. For the use-cases where I need this, it would be better with regular generics.

[rphmeier]

I think by swapping the rules for traits with metadata and those without, we can get rid of the ASSOCIATED keyword in this and simply add an extra rule to each:

$(type $assoc_ty_name: ident; )*

in the metadata case, this would follow the type Metadata; declaration.

[tomusdrw]

@gavofyork @rphmeier I believe it's not required any more in Polkadot, is it? Would be awesome to avoid ASSOCIATED keyword if possible, see #267 (comment)

[rphmeier]

@tomusdrw no, not needed for polkadot any more. 100% agree about ASSOCIATED keyword.

[tomusdrw]

Closing, since I doesn't seem to be needed. We might consider this as part of #66