On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:03 PM, jimmy frasche <soapboxcic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wouldn't there be an issue with fp := AFunc[int] ?
I don't think so. AFunc[int] would be parsed as an index operation, and after name lookup it would resolve into either an array lookup or a function instantiation, depending on the meaning of `int` in the current scope. This is not very different from the way that t(v) resolves to either a function call or a type conversion after name lookup. It's quite different from using <>, which has to be parsed quite differently depending on whether it is an instantiation or a comparison. > Though for that matter I wouldn't mind if the type part were repeated > for instantiations like AFunc[type int] or even AFunc(type int) That would be possible but seems unnecessary. I personally would prefer to avoid it. > For that matter, always writing type would let you use < > since the > parser could plausibly enter a separate mode when it hit the < token > followed by type. > > Noisy but obvious at a glance what's happening. Yes, that is true except for the >> issue. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
