4 ms·

Even the current syntax is a bit non coherent. Would you go with "Vector[int]" a la map, or with "Vector int" a la chan? I think both considered the proposed s

Even the current syntax is a bit non coherent. Would you go with "Vector[int]" a la map, or with "Vector int" a la chan? I think both considered the proposed syntax is actually better.

nyanpasu64 6y ago
In my opinion, `Vector int` is the more logical syntax. `Vector[int]` to me seems like a vector indexed by int (rather than containing int), much like `map[int]T` is a map indexed by int, and `[5]T` is an array indexed by an integer less than 5. For the same reason, I dislike `std::array<T, 5>` which puts the range type before the domain constraint. This is inconsistent with `std::map<int, T>` which puts the domain type before the range type, and `[](int x) -> T` which puts the domain type before the range type.
- majewsky 6y ago
  > `Vector int` is the more logical syntax. This introduces several parser ambiguities, esp. related to nested template types or types with multiple parameters. For instance, does `Foo Bar Baz` read as `Foo(Bar, Baz)` or `Foo(Bar(Baz))`?
  - Animats 6y ago
    Right. For consistency, the old built-in generics should be written var v chan(int) var m map(keytype,datatype) instead of var v chan int var m map[keytype]datatype but, for backwards compatibility, that probably won't happen. Thus, cruft. Map was always a bit too special in Go. Channels really are special; the compiler knows quite a bit about channels, what with "select", "case", and "go" keywords and their machinery. But maps are just a built in library object.
    - dvirsky 6y ago
      I wonder if at least they will add this as an additional way to define them and deprecate the old ones without disabling them.
      - majewsky 6y ago
        They won't. Go leans very hard towards "there is exactly one way to do it".
        dvirsky 6y ago
        I know they won't but now there are 3 ways to express the same idea!
    - nyanpasu64 6y ago
      If you want a dynamically sized vector pointing to a datatype, I think `Vector [] Value` is most "semantically meaningful". And if you want to define your own map, `Map [Key] Value` is most self-explanatory... now that I look at it, I'm starting to feel that this introduces too many special cases and complexity into generic syntax to be useful for the actual language parser. I might stick with that in documentation/comments instead.

Even the current syntax is a bit non coherent. Would you go with "Vector[int]" a la map, or with "Vector int" a la chan? I think both considered the proposed syntax is actually better.

nyanpasu64 6y ago

In my opinion, `Vector int` is the more logical syntax. `Vector[int]` to me seems like a vector indexed by int (rather than containing int), much like `map[int]T` is a map indexed by int, and `[5]T` is an array indexed by an integer less than 5. For the same reason, I dislike `std::array<T, 5>` which puts the range type before the domain constraint. This is inconsistent with `std::map<int, T>` which puts the domain type before the range type, and `[](int x) -> T` which puts the domain type before the range type.

majewsky 6y ago
> `Vector int` is the more logical syntax. This introduces several parser ambiguities, esp. related to nested template types or types with multiple parameters. For instance, does `Foo Bar Baz` read as `Foo(Bar, Baz)` or `Foo(Bar(Baz))`?
- Animats 6y ago
  Right. For consistency, the old built-in generics should be written var v chan(int) var m map(keytype,datatype) instead of var v chan int var m map[keytype]datatype but, for backwards compatibility, that probably won't happen. Thus, cruft. Map was always a bit too special in Go. Channels really are special; the compiler knows quite a bit about channels, what with "select", "case", and "go" keywords and their machinery. But maps are just a built in library object.
  - dvirsky 6y ago
    I wonder if at least they will add this as an additional way to define them and deprecate the old ones without disabling them.
    - majewsky 6y ago
      They won't. Go leans very hard towards "there is exactly one way to do it".
      - dvirsky 6y ago
        I know they won't but now there are 3 ways to express the same idea!
  - nyanpasu64 6y ago
    If you want a dynamically sized vector pointing to a datatype, I think `Vector [] Value` is most "semantically meaningful". And if you want to define your own map, `Map [Key] Value` is most self-explanatory... now that I look at it, I'm starting to feel that this introduces too many special cases and complexity into generic syntax to be useful for the actual language parser. I might stick with that in documentation/comments instead.