On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:36 AM Charles Crete <char...@cretezy.com> wrote:
>
> Based on the new proposal, having the type parameters as () seems very
> confusing, as now 3 things in a row use ():
> - Type parameters
> - Function parameters/arguments
> - Return tuple
>
> This results in code like (from the draft):
> func Stringify(type T Stringer)(s []T) (ret []string) {
> for _, v := range s {
> ret = append(ret, v.String())
> }
> return ret
> }
>
> Instead, using <> similar to other languages, makes it easier to visual parse:
> func Stringify<T Stringer>(s []T) (ret []string) {
> for _, v := range s {
> ret = append(ret, v.String())
> }
> return ret
> }
>
> This can also apply to type definitions:
> type Vector<T> []T
>
> To summarize:
> - Having 3 times () in a row makes it confusing to visual parse
> - The type keyword is not necessary
> - Using <> would make it friendly (and easier to recognize)
Let's try the current suggested syntax and see how it works out in practice.
https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/design/go2draft-type-parameters.md#why-not-use-the-syntax-like-c_and-java
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcU%2B8XFLa7LU1Eaq_bYziAdBLxnR_WG19LLfcoN4qMh-ew%40mail.gmail.com.
