Agreed. I've been a happy Gopher since 2011 and would really like to see <> or even [] instead of ().
On Wednesday, 15 July 2020 20:03:40 UTC+3, Dan Markham wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 9:45:41 PM UTC-7, robert engels wrote: >> >> 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). >> > > This really captures my feeling perfectly, the parser changes have to be > less man hours to build and maintain going forward than the man hours of > all the existing and new developers. All options have a downsides at least > <T> is as "standard" as one can get when talking about generics. > > Some version of <T> will help beginners in reducing the cognitive load > when learning and using Go. > > Thanks, > -Dan > > > > >> > On Jul 14, 2020, at 11:13 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <ia...@golang.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:21 PM Ahmed (OneOfOne) W. <oneo...@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 golan...@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/99edaa65-798c-4870-bb15-0a43bbe6c868o%40googlegroups.com.
