It’s a bit of a change but certainly the right thing to do.
My only disagreement with the article is the get/set stuff. I still want to keep something like the old container[index] syntax, maybe container.[index] to indicate that it’s a form of access. As long as generics go after names, this would not cause ambiguity.
What’s a struct, but a tuple with some names?
What’s computation but state and a transition function between states?
What’s computation but a set of functions transformed by simple term rewriting?
Let people enjoy their syntax sugar.
What? I agree with function[T] style generics, and would be willing to change the access syntax to something like container.[index], as the dot makes the difference quite clear.
Or do you mean the approach to implementing a container or the way the compiler has to transform it into the set operation/mutable access? I didn’t think that was such a problem, and I quite like the way it is done in rust, but that approach may be unavailable to many languages.
It’s a bit of a change but certainly the right thing to do.
My only disagreement with the article is the get/set stuff. I still want to keep something like the old
container[index]syntax, maybecontainer.[index]to indicate that it’s a form of access. As long as generics go after names, this would not cause ambiguity.What’s a form of access but a function from some index type to some element type?
What’s a struct, but a tuple with some names?
What’s computation but state and a transition function between states?
What’s computation but a set of functions transformed by simple term rewriting?
Let people enjoy their syntax sugar.
Wasting a perfectly good pair of brackets on some random function call and then suffering for it in many other places sounds more like syntactic salt.
What? I agree with
function[T]style generics, and would be willing to change the access syntax to something likecontainer.[index], as the dot makes the difference quite clear. Or do you mean the approach to implementing a container or the way the compiler has to transform it into the set operation/mutable access? I didn’t think that was such a problem, and I quite like the way it is done in rust, but that approach may be unavailable to many languages.