On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 14:51:17 -0700
jimmy frasche wrote:
> I didn't care about () except for having to then have extra parens
> around types in a lot of places which was very annoying and came up
> often. If [] fixes that, great!
I was pretty unhappy with () just because there's too many () and
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:26:15 -0700
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The suggested syntax, whether with parentheses or square brackets, has
> what I consider to be a very nice property: the definition and use
> syntaxes are very similar. For the definition we write
>
> func F[type T]() {}
>
> For the
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
Fino wrote:
> I vote for <: and :>
I'm conflicted on it. <> match what several other languages do, but are
problematic for the parser. () is definitely overused. [] is tolerable.
I'd like to bring up the possibility of ??( and ??), mostly so that
