> Have the authors considered the implications of requiring the `type` keyword to use a generic type, not just at declaration time? Would this open up more syntax possibilities, such as `var x T<type int>`? This might be easier to read at the expense of five more characters of typing. It also could unify declaration and usage syntax even more than the proposal.
> This might be easier to read Square brackets are easier to read. They are larger and catchier to eyes than lesser and greater signs used as brackets. And type-less syntax with mandatory constraint is even easier and feels like a great match with the rest of the language. четверг, 6 августа 2020 г. в 22:25:19 UTC+3, Red Daly: > Have the authors considered the implications of requiring the `type` > keyword to use a generic type, not just at declaration time? Would this > open up more syntax possibilities, such as `var x T<type int>`? This might > be easier to read at the expense of five more characters of typing. It also > could unify declaration and usage syntax even more than the proposal. > > (Personally, I will accept any syntax. It's not realistic to expect this > for go2, but I would prefer if go3 ditched the C-style syntax altogether in > favor of a simpler, lisp-style syntax. Such a syntax would make it easier > to introduce language features like this one. Macros and metaprogramming > would also be much more straightforward for users to add useful > abstractions to the language.) > On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 7:15:08 AM UTC-7 Mike Schinkel wrote: > >> 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/fbc7a998-0e8d-46ff-a59a-23a63a8a5aa0n%40googlegroups.com.
