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.