A bit out of subject but the naming with generics has always bothered me. It's more of an general observation and don't have a solution for it. I think we all agree that naming types and variables is important. Why for generics we accept that naming them E, K P, T etc.. is good and sufficient? I have always a hard time understanding signature because these one letter don't give me any context to catch on. (It work for K and V because they are common and containers are an easy concept to grasp) Perhaps in go the generic parameters will stay close enough to not be a problem, but my experience in Java show me it's really hard to understand a hierarchy of parametrized types and function across multiple files when they all use the same letters. And as letters have barely no meaning behind it, they generally evolve in non controlled way. Not in containers or map/reduce but in some controller where every now fancy functionality add its share of constraints it can become daunting. In that case, using one letter just hide the mess behind it.
So while one letter work well for containers and map reduce, and that I would wish that generic is used in simple way I think it's to early to make a decision. Hopefully if the go community doesn't go full Java style with it's generic one letter could be okay. Le mercredi 20 janvier 2021 à 04:34:05 UTC+1, Ian Lance Taylor a écrit : > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:33 PM Wojciech S. Czarnecki <oh...@fairbe.org> > wrote: > > > > I'd propose to amend specification so the type parameter identifiers > were of A-Z set, > > ie. single uppercase ascii letter. While it is a current convention, it > would be better > > to have this convention forced by compiler. First to have an additional > cue "generics here", > > second - to close an easy avenue to hide cloudy or malignant constructs > in the source. > > > > = induced by conversation spotted in other thread: > > Personally I think this role would be better played by some sort of > linter. Reasonable people can disagree as to the naming style to use > for type parameters. > > Ian > > > > > Carla Pfaff via golang-nuts" <golan...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> m8il...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 19 January 2021 at 15:39:25 UTC+1 m8il...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > Seems to me that most generics implementations use a capital letter > > > > abstracted type syntax that I hate. > > > > > > This is just a convention and not part of the syntax, which means it's > > > irrelevant to the discussion about the proposal. You can easily use > > > lowercase letters/identifiers: > https://go2goplay.golang.org/p/eWgJSLNTZw8 > > > > -- > > Wojciech S. Czarnecki > > << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE > > > > -- > > 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...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/20210120033232.7492029f%40xmint > . > -- 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/9060b24f-810b-451f-bba7-42079c73ca4en%40googlegroups.com.
