On Jun 18, 2020, at 6:19 PM, Jon Conradt <j...@theconradts.com> wrote: > > Ian, I like the direction being taken on Generics, and I am thankful the Go > Team did not rush into an implementation. > > I'm not a huge fan of another set of ()'s and I agree with not wanting the > overhead of overloading <>. That got me thinking that we are in the 21st > century. We all use editors which are comfortable with Unicode. Why not take > advantage of characters beyond 7-bit ASCII?
The biggest reason, IMO: those are difficult to type on a keyboard. What you're proposing here will be nearly impossible to type on any editor that doesn't have specialized support, which is a lot of them. The keystrokes you propose (shift-opt-0/9) are Mac specific, since no one else has an Option key, and on my Terminal (on OS X) they result in the characters "·" and "‚" respectively, so I can't use them in vi. The second-biggest reason is that they aren't guaranteed to display right everywhere (especially on screen readers, and I know we have a number of visually-impaired folks on this list for whom this is vitally important). With apologies to those who can't view images, here is how this looks on my mail client in both proportional font (as received) and monospaced (as typed): This will cause problems. The authors of the proposal explicitly said they couldn't bring themselves to use something that's not ASCII, and I think that's still a valid decision. - Dave -- 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/B2D47B12-F91B-4F87-8E20-33ACE5B35878%40gmail.com.
