Re: [go-nuts] Generics: More on parens

On Jun 18, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Jon Conradt wrote: > > Ian, I like the direction being taken on Generics, and I am thankful the Go > Team did not rush into an implementation. > > I'm not a huge fan of another set of ()'s and I agree with not wanting the > overhead of overloading <>. That got me t

Re: [go-nuts] Generics: More on parens

Heh, I also run GMail+Chrome, but I see rectangles instead of blank spaces (see attachment), which only reinforces your point. On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:28 AM David Anderson wrote: > Here's one reason to not do that (screenshot from gmail, in a chrome with > a ton of unicode-ready fonts, display

Re: [go-nuts] Generics: More on parens

Here's one reason to not do that (screenshot from gmail, in a chrome with a ton of unicode-ready fonts, displaying your email) : [image: lol.png] Also already addressed at https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/design/go2draft-type-parameters.md#why-not-use . - Dave On Thu, Jun

Re: [go-nuts] Generics: More on parens

Ian, I like the direction being taken on Generics, and I am thankful the Go Team did not rush into an implementation. I'm not a huge fan of another set of ()'s and I agree with not wanting the overhead of overloading <>. That got me thinking that we are in the 21st century. We all use editors w

Re: [go-nuts] Generics: More on parens

Thanks Ian for the reply. I certainly understand wanting to get more experience with the proposed syntax, but I still don't think the trade-offs are worth it. In particular, I remain concerned about the cognitive load of using parens in yet another context, and the (IMHO) unnecessary breaking of b

Re: [go-nuts] Generics: More on parens

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:31 PM Aaron Cannon wrote: > > I, like many others, am not fond of all the parenthesis, particularly at call > sites. I think at definition sites, it's not so bad. It seems like the only > objection to < and > are the complexity it adds for parsing. It also seems > like

[go-nuts] Generics: More on parens

I, like many others, am not fond of all the parenthesis, particularly at call sites. I think at definition sites, it's not so bad. It seems like the only objection to < and > are the complexity it adds for parsing. It also seems like the only place it adds ambiguity is at call or enstantiation s