I'm curious how you would propose rewriting:
func Foo(type T comparable, B interface{})(a T, b B, c T) {
On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 6:57:45 PM UTC-4, mit...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hello, Ian,
>
> Would it be possible to have a generic type annotation syntax like this:
>
> // Print prints the elements of any slice.// Print has a type parameter T,
> and has a single (non-type)// parameter s which is a slice of that type
> parameter.
> func Print(type T)(s []T) {
>
>
> ==>
>
> // Print prints the elements of any slice.// Print has a type parameter T,
> and has a single (non-type)// parameter s which is a slice of that type
> parameter.
> func Print(s []T:type) {
>
>
> This doesn't seem to clash with existing syntax, doesn't require a new
> pair of parenthesis, marks T as a generic type (and can have added
> constraint names right next to it, e.g: Print(s []T:type constraint)
>
> Or anything similar really, that keeps the generic type description
> in-line with regular types, e.g. could be a special sigil added to a type
> parameter as well (@T, $T, etc to mark it as generic, e.g.: Print(s []$T
> constraint)
>
> haven't thought this through by any means, but it strikes me as a cleaner
> option than a new set of parenthesis and duplication of the generic
> parameter names.
>
> Does it make any sense? Don't recall seeing this in some other language...
>
--
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/0fbc45cf-1fe0-4910-adc1-9a6c77422566o%40googlegroups.com.
