Hi Russ, In general, I think the proposal is a really good one. I like that you abandoned contracts as interfaces were just too similar, and personally I like the choice of square brackets.
There are a few aspects I do not like — 1.) no zero value and 2.) lack of covariance and contravariance — but perhaps those can be addressed in the future? All in all, I think the team has come up with a really good approach to generics, much better than the prior proposals. -Mike P.S. If there is one thing that piqued my interest about this thread it was Geoff Speicher's suggestion of a "generic" keyword, assuming type inference could be addressed. That approach would be even easier to reason about than the current proposal, I think. That said, the current proposal is very good if type inference can not be addressed in Geoff Speicher's suggestion. On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 8:02:55 PM UTC-4 Russ Cox wrote: > So it sounds like everyone is in favor of the entire generics proposal and > all the semantics, and all we have left to hammer out is the bracket > characters? Do I have that right? > > Best, > Russ > > > > -- 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/56865922-75d0-43c6-8a4e-6777c39fce25n%40googlegroups.com.
