On Monday, 3 August 2020 at 19:46:05 UTC+2 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Yet another possibility, going back to the syntax question above, is
> requiring that a type parameter for a type alway have a constraint,
> which would mean that we would never use the "type" keyword for type
> parameters, and define a predeclared identifier "any = interface{}".
>
Thanks for considering this possibility. Why I like it:
- Type parameter lists and function parameter lists have the same
structure. Constraint is to type parameter as type is to function parameter.
- Even more symmetry between declaration and instantiation than before:
No "type" keyword at instantiation, no "type" keyword at declaration.
- Type parameter lists do not suddenly take on a different shape when
they are a mixture of constrained and unconstrained type parameters
compared to fully unconstrained type parameter lists:
- Without "type" keyword
- [A, B any] and [A any, B comparable] // No surprise
- With "type" keyword
- [type A, B] and [type A interface{}, B comparable] // A wild
interface{} appears!
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/177f43c1-70d9-4c24-8eee-e2e02cc81925n%40googlegroups.com.
