[go-nuts] [generics] () instead of (type T)

Hi, The type parameters in the current proposal uses `(type xxx)` which is visually hard to distinguish from function parameters. There are reasons stated in the proposal to not adopt <> (which is common in other languages) which I'm not going to challenge. But have you considered `()`? It sho

Re: [go-nuts] [generics] () instead of (type T)

It's covered in the generics design doc, and by about a dozen threads on golang-nuts at this point. Unless the parsing issues can be addressed satisfactorily, that option is off the table right now. Same for [T] and other variations. - Dave On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:34 AM wrote: > Hi, > > The

Re: [go-nuts] [generics] () instead of (type T)

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 3:45 AM David Anderson wrote: > It's covered in the generics design doc, and by about a dozen threads on > golang-nuts at this point. I think that the suggestion was for F(), not F. If so, that suggestion isn't covered by the generics design doc or the other golang-nuts t

Re: [go-nuts] [generics] () instead of (type T)

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:33 AM wrote: > > The type parameters in the current proposal uses `(type xxx)` which is > visually hard to distinguish from function parameters. > > There are reasons stated in the proposal to not adopt <> (which is common in > other languages) which I'm not going to c