Ian D, The introduction is certainly not intended to be insulting to those who have put serious thought into the problem. If it were, then I'd be insulting myself as I've put serious thought into at least two other proposals which are nothing like the current one!
It's simply a realization I've come to that there's a lot of mileage in the original draft which is the culmination of what two very smart people have been working on for years and should not therefore be dismissed too readily. Sure, it's not perfect and that's why I have suggested some changes which no doubt are still far from perfect! I don't think I have dismissed anything without providing some justification for it. FWIW I personally would like to see some form of operator overloading even though I acknowledge it has a lot of problems and we're unlikely to see it. I also don't think that Eric was being disrespectful to Ian LT and Robert. He simply has a profound dislike for the draft generics design and believes in expressing himself forcibly and at times, comically :) Alan On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 8:49:31 PM UTC+1, Ian Denhardt wrote: > First, I find the introduction to this condescending; it amounts to "the > Go developers know what they're doing, stop questioning them plebians!" > It is phrased more politely, but the content is basically there. This > is: > > 1. Insulting to those of us who also have put serious thought > into the problem, and perhaps also have knowledge and experience > in this area of programming language design. > 2. Largely missing the point of the draft designs, which were meant > as a starting point for discussion; the Go developers were > explicitly soliciting feedback. > 3. Ignores the fact that most of us have been raising specific > critiques of the design. While our criticisms are based on > substance, you dismiss them entirely without providing a > justification other than "Ian and Robert know what they're > doing." > > Second, I agree with Tristan that Eric's sibling comment is a bit sharp; > let's be careful to keep this civil, as it's clear that some of us are > feeling a bit tense. > > Ultimately however I agree with Eric that the proposal focuses on > relatively superficial issues. > > That said I do like the idea of using [type T]; while my own focus has > been on semantics, like many I agree the existing syntax is not very > ergonomic. > > Quoting alanfo (2018-10-19 13:48:20) > > My head has been spinning lately after reading the various generic > > counter-proposals and suddenly the original draft design seems a lot > > more attractive than it did :) > > In the light of all the feedback there's been, I've put together a > > proposal which sticks closely to the original design and only changes > > what most people consider needs to be changed in some way. Some > recent > > ideas which seemed plausible but which I felt had little chance of > > adoption have been rejected. > > It's not too long so give it a read and see what you think. > > Here's the link: > > [1]https://gist.github.com/alanfo/72f07362d687f625a958bde1808e0c87 > > Alan > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
