My opinion is that every major language (no flames please… lots of developers write lots of programs and make money doing it) that supports generics uses < > for generic types, so Go should too - since there is no reason to deviate from this other than to avoid changes to the parser. Seems better to pay this cost once - rather than every Go program that uses generics being harder to read for eternity (especially for those readers that use a lot of languages).
> On Jul 14, 2020, at 11:13 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:21 PM Ahmed (OneOfOne) W. <oneof...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> This feels a little better, but honestly I'm still all for angle brackets or >> like Watson suggested, guillamets. >> >> fn(T1)(fn2(T2)(fn3(T3)(v))) // 1 >> fn[T1](fn2[T2](fn3[T3](v))) // 2 >> fn<T1>(fn2<T2>(fn3<T3>(v))) // 3 >> fn«T1»(fn2«T2»(fn3«T3»v))) // 4 >> >> To me, with a background in C++ and Typescript and a little bit of Rust, #3 >> and #4 are just natural and easier to read. > > The advantage of parentheses is that the language already uses > parentheses for lists in various places. Of course that is also the > disadvantage. > > When considering something other than parentheses, I encourage people > to look for objective reasons why one syntax is better than another. > It's going to be different from other aspects of the language. So > what reason would we have for preferring one syntax over another? > > For example: > > Robert already gave reasons why square brackets are better than angle > brackets. > > The disadvantage of guillemets is that they are hard to type on many > keyboards. So to me either square brackets or angle brackets would be > better than guillemets. > > The disadvantage of a two character sequence such as <: :> is that it > is more typing. So again either square brackets or angle brackets > seem to me to be better. > > An example of a reason that square brackets might be a poor choice > would be ambiguous parsing, or cases where the code is harder to read. > > It's true that some other languages use angle brackets, but Go already > does many things differently. That is only a minor advantage for > angle brackets. To me at least it does not outweigh the > disadvantages. > > In short, please try to provide reasons for a different syntax. "It > looks good" is a valid reason, but please try to explain why it looks > better than square brackets or parentheses. > > Thanks. > > 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. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcX-OXktNtUs0G4Ns0iEr3R2qLPpU7q1%3DrOY93%3DAO16a3g%40mail.gmail.com. -- 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/825D82DD-C595-415D-B0C6-7BE090A015C7%40ix.netcom.com.
