On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Christophe Meessen <christophe.mees...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I know about the problems it raised with C++, but Go is different. Go2 draft > restricts generic parameters to types. > The only case where there might eventually be an ambiguity is with > specialized functions in expressions. > > I would like to determine if it's still possible to use < > and avoid the > pitfalls. > > One of the option to consider is to use a special character to signal the > specializing of a generic. Such a special character could be $ for instance. > > A generic type or function would be instantiated by the following expression > : > > foo$<int>(...) > bar$<int,float>(...) > foo2$<List$<float>>(...) > > When there is only one generic parameter, we could use a concise form > > foo$int(...) == foo$<int>(...) > foo2$List$float(...) == foo2$<List$<float>>(...) > > My current understanding is that the $ would remove ambiguity in parsing.
Thanks. I agree that that your suggestion work. It just boils down to aesthetic preference. > The reason I would prefer to use < > is to > - satisfy to rule of least surprise. Your suggested syntax is not the same as any existing language I know of, so I don't think it's reasonable to claim that it is unsurprising. > - readability One of the goals of Go is to look light on the page. Personally I don't think scattering $ around the code looks good. I think it is less readable. But, as I say, this is an aesthetic preference. If there is a consensus in favor of your syntax, or some other unambiguous syntax, I'm OK with that. Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
