Can not agree any more. Compiler's job, it's duty, is to translate the human readable code into binary 0 and 1. Human readability should take precedence over the compiler complexity and even performance.
在 2020年7月15日星期三 UTC+8下午12:45:41，robert engels写道： > > 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 <ia...@golang.org > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:21 PM Ahmed (OneOfOne) W. <oneo...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> 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 <javascript:>. > > 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/3d87d10a-10d1-47cb-9771-ce501644682co%40googlegroups.com.
