Completely agree about "Generics are useful except when their syntax
becomes cryptic". But reading this proposal (quickly, while doing a bunch
of other stuff :), the syntax is very clean and the proposal is very well
thought.
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:44 AM Michal Strba <faiface2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with that. What exactly do you consider cryptic, though, about
> my proposal? I thought the syntax was very clean. Furthermore,
> regarding relating this to C++, I quote:
>
> > Just to make it clear, you aren't allowed to use operators like +, -, <,
> call methods, or access struct fields of a generic value
>
> I'm just not sure how your sentiment relates to the proposal.
>
> št 30. 5. 2019 o 19:41 <lgod...@gmail.com> napísal(a):
> >
> > Sorry again for the power failure...let me try one last time
> >
> > one of the annoying things you have to deal with as a team member is
> being assigned an "update" of code written by someone who no longer works
> for the team.
> > What makes this annoying is possibility of running into code sections
> that contain "crytic" statements that require lots of effort to understand.
> > After looking at the link you provided, based on my history dealing
> with unnecessary and avoidable 'cryptic C++,
> > my input is: Generics are a great idea EXCEPT when they allow use of
> cryptic syntax
> >
> > On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 12:29:03 PM UTC-4, Michal Strba wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Gophers! :)
> >>
> >> I've been thinking about generics in Go 2 ever since the original
> contracts proposal and few days ago, ideas finally clicked. One of the main
> things about this proposal is that it deliberately omits the ability to
> restrict the set of types a function can work with. This is a limitation,
> but I hope to convince you that we can still do a vast majority of the
> things we were missing, when we were missing generics.
> >>
> >> I'd love to share my proposal with you and engage in a good faith
> conversation.
> >>
> >> Link to the proposal.
> >>
> >> Here's what the proposal covers:
> >>
> >> 1. Syntax of a new gen keyword.
> >> 2. Generic functions.
> >> 3. Unnamed generic arguments (a.k.a. a way to gve a type to the
> built-in new function).
> >> 4. Semantics of generic values (ability to use them as map keys, ...).
> >> 5. Generic array lengths.
> >> 6. Reflection and interface{}.
> >> 7. Generic types (with two examples: List and Matrix).
> >> 8. Generic methods and their limitations due to reflection.
> >> 9. Generic interfaces.
> >> 10. List of things this proposal can't do.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> faiface
> >
> > --
> > 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 the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4e266f34-32d8-4b3d-8f45-55da5651ed9e%40googlegroups.com
> .
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> 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 the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAO6k0usA%3D6EdH6mpTPqYnpnEBWNu8GST%2Bam-G2rQEZNPGUPC7A%40mail.gmail.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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 the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CANKfuca%2B_CYJ59nSfB8n3zq8D0acXEcfHvV3HtyQEHmZ9xnAAw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
