I think David Chase’s idea is interesting.
--
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 th
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 03:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:19 PM 移库海牙客 wrote:
> >
> > I agree the syntax should be more readable and easier to understand. But
> I think the current syntax is less readable.
> > For example:
> >
> > type I2 interface {
> > (I1(int))
> > }
>
Embed interface is common practice.
There is no extra cost in F.
It is more readable because we can identify generic whenever we see <>. We
must use more time to discover a generic using F(T), it looks like a
function.
And it solve problems like embed types.
Most people just don't get use to it
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:19 PM 移库海牙客 wrote:
>
> I agree the syntax should be more readable and easier to understand. But I
> think the current syntax is less readable.
> For example:
>
> type I2 interface {
> (I1(int))
> }
>
>
> type S2 struct {
> (S1(int))
> }
>
>
> We must use redundant bracke
I agree the syntax should be more readable and easier to understand. But I
think the current syntax is less readable.
For example:
type I2 interface {
(I1(int))}
type S2 struct {
(S1(int))}
We must use redundant brackets to keep the syntax right. I don't think this
is readabl
We could regard the function as a method on the type(s), maybe?
Not sure if this is a good idea or not, especially since we don't have
multimethods (methods applied to multiple values) for ordinary values.
On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 1:53:56 PM UTC-4 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 202
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:09 AM James L wrote:
>
> Have you read other thread which have been answered many times?
In fairness, this idea is different, because the type comes first.
Since the '<' character will always be the start of an expression, I
think it may be unambiguous. I think this ha
Have you read other thread which have been answered many times?
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 12:46 AM, wrote:
> I read the new generic draft. And I know F,F[T],F《T》 is discarded. I
> think put the type paremeter in front of the function name may be better.
> No ambiguous and more readable code.
>
> fu
I read the new generic draft. And I know F,F[T],F《T》 is discarded. I
think put the type paremeter in front of the function name may be better.
No ambiguous and more readable code.
func Print(type T)(s []T) {}
Print(int)([]int{1, 2, 3})
func Print(s []T) {}
Print([]int{1, 2, 3})
--
You rece
