On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:41 PM joshua harr <joshua.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just a note on your rationale for why not to use <: :> : > "... requires more typing." Golang has, rather famously, never shied away > from making developers type more. The reason it hasn't, as far as I > understand, is that code is read far often than it is written, and so the > extra verbosity is worth the ease in reading the code. IMHO, that principle > very much applies here. The *readability* of the syntax should be a far more > important consideration than whether there is an extra character in the > syntax.
That's a fair point. Having two characters is still in my mind a disadvantage, but I agree that that disadvantage could be outweighed by a gain in readability. That said, personally I don't find <:T:> to be any more (or less) readable than [T]. Ian > On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 12:14:31 AM UTC-4 Ian Lance Taylor 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/985c8685-484c-417c-a421-fe7a222d56c7n%40googlegroups.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/CAOyqgcUu0Jh%3DCsQ-0zy%3DkY3uFesYPBUAovYbvUyvPxpW%2BpPEiw%40mail.gmail.com.
