On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:27 PM Bakul Shah <ba...@iitbombay.org> wrote: > > The syntax rule I envisioned was this: > type: ... | type generic-type | ... > > To me, using full parenthesization, this would be > func() int pair pair" == "((func() int) pair)pair --(1) > What you seem to want is > (func() (int pair)) pair --(2) > > Contrast that with > pair[pair[func() int]] --(1) > and > pair[func()pair[int]] --(2) > > As I see it, the alternate syntax is no worse for extreme cases but much > better for the common case.
What I was trying to get at wasn't really whether the syntax is better or worse when parenthesized correctly. It was about how it reads without parentheses, and how people will know when to add parentheses. With the square brackets it seems clear to me what the cases mean and how to write them. With the prefix notation it seems less clear. > The second issue is the usage for generic functions. Contrast > > (float64, int)PowN(1.2, 3) > with > PowN[float64, int](1.2, 3) > or currently > PowN(float64, int)(1.2, 3) > > I find the alternate syntax easier because conceptually the concrete types > used to select a specific concrete function is a different activity than > passing arguments to a function at runtime so IMHO they should be visually > different. It is almost like C style cast. Think of it as casting a generic > function (or type) to a concrete function or type! Personally I find it more natural to think of the types as arguments. And that is how most popular languages handle them too. I understand that you feel differently. 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/CAOyqgcVo5HOob9Mywe%2Bd%2BDCy77WmWwNq%2BLAV7hTUAY%3DLQjmiCA%40mail.gmail.com.
