On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:31 PM Aaron Cannon <cann...@fireantproductions.com> wrote: > > I, like many others, am not fond of all the parenthesis, particularly at call > sites. I think at definition sites, it's not so bad. It seems like the only > objection to < and > are the complexity it adds for parsing. It also seems > like the only place it adds ambiguity is at call or enstantiation sites. So > what if we used .<? E.G. instead of Print(string)(stringSlice) we would do > Print.<string>(stringSlice) I think definitions could just swap () for < > > for generic type parameters, without the dot. > Aside from that, and wishing that the proposal specified that generics would > all be resolved at compile time rather than at run time, I'm really loving > this!
Thanks for the note. I think we should get some experience with writing code using this syntax before we discard it. Ian -- 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/CAOyqgcXO2KhFng7ern7%2BQ%3Dsus%2BKA0Rjz4V__zkCiTZYjM27LTg%40mail.gmail.com.
