Ian Denhardt <i...@zenhack.net>:
> 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.
I was serious when I said I meant no insult, and apologize to any who
felt insulted.
> 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.
I will concur with that, too. I would prefer a better solution to the
deep problems. Failing that I would prefer a solution syntactically
marking the generic formals in the regular signature to a prefix
clause. But yes, () to [] would be an improvement in the
prefix-clause syntax - more visual distinctness.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
--
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.
