On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 2:04 PM Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 9:42 AM Geoff Speicher <ge...@speicher.org> wrote: > > > > This is great work but compared to the rest of Go's existing syntax, I > personally find it much harder to grok the generic code examples regardless > of bracket choice. > > > > It seems like a lot of complication stems from what effectively amounts > to requiring the programmer to declare a new generic type everyplace one is > needed. This seems like a lot of unnecessary noise, especially when you > consider that a package is likely to reuse generic types. > > [clip] > > This seems similar to the discussion at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/mXn9x01mFzM/Zf7lSXVuBgAJ . > > It seems hard to know how to instantiate a generic function or type, > as there is no clear information in the declaration as to the presence > or order of the type parameters. > I see. Is the problem here theoretically limited to the scenarios where type inference does not work in the current design? -- 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/CAG0mjcnL1itH7o14KkdMY0fpQTzZzOpEomfxGAw-Q55phpd9HQ%40mail.gmail.com.
