Not all languages use <> for parametric parametrism. I tried lots of
variants and my favorite is [] from Scala (I don't like Scala, BTW).
четверг, 18 июня 2020 г., 11:15:16 UTC+3 пользователь Nathanael Curin
написал:
>
> An argument for this is also that (all ?) languages that use generics use
> <>. It might make learning just easier for new Go developers that have
> experience from generics-compatible languages.
>
> Dimas -> Resembling other languages in some ways is not necessarily a bad
> thing, if the idea behind it makes sense.
>
> Le mercredi 17 juin 2020 18:36:10 UTC+2, Charles Crete a écrit :
>>
>> Based on the new proposal, having the type parameters as () seems very
>> confusing, as now 3 things in a row use ():
>> - Type parameters
>> - Function parameters/arguments
>> - Return tuple
>>
>> This results in code like (from the draft):
>> func Stringify(type T Stringer)(s []T) (ret []string) {
>> for _, v := range s {
>> ret = append(ret, v.String())
>> }
>> return ret
>> }
>>
>> Instead, using <> similar to other languages, makes it easier to visual
>> parse:
>> func Stringify<T Stringer>(s []T) (ret []string) {
>> for _, v := range s {
>> ret = append(ret, v.String())
>> }
>> return ret
>> }
>>
>> This can also apply to type definitions:
>> type Vector<T> []T
>>
>> To summarize:
>> - Having 3 times () in a row makes it confusing to visual parse
>> - The type keyword is not necessary
>> - Using <> would make it friendly (and easier to recognize)
>>
>
--
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/72815259-77ba-4ac8-b5c3-1e4943a08d47o%40googlegroups.com.
