As I wrote, parentheses are not needed for the common case of single type
parameter. If you have more than one, you need parentheses but note that this
is a *prefix* and any parsing ambiguities can removed by using a - if needed.
For your example it will be something like
(float64,int)PowN(1.2, 3)
It’s just a syntax change. There is zero semantic difference from the current
proposal. I just tried to get idea across - I can work out a complete set of
syntax rule changes if there is sufficient interest but the gen rule will be
something like
gen-type-decl: gen-prefix type-decl;
gen-func-decl: gen-prefix func-decl;
gen-prefix: “gen” typeX-list
typeX-list: typeX | typeX-list “,” typeX ;
typeX: NAME [constraint] ;
> On Jul 15, 2020, at 12:01 AM, 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts
> <golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> How do these deal with non-type determined uses. Say you have (by any
> spelling)
>
> gen F,I func PowN(a F, b I) F {...}
>
> How do you specify the type of F or I when say you have untyped
> constants. This still requires parens or other markings to indicate the
> actual types of F and I. It seems many of the comments here complaining
> about brackets and such are ignoring this aspect of the current
> proposal.
--
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/A7BB89C9-ADDC-4C25-B8DE-EC0F358B5D33%40iitbombay.org.
