[arghblarg]

For what it's worth from the Peanut Gallery™, I find the proposed syntax quite readable and am happy there are no angle brackets <> stabbing my eyes.

It seems powerful enough to cover most cases of generics. Architecture astronauts will never be happy, but tough.

[IshKebab]

I'd definitely prefer angle brackets. With everything being parantheses I just get lost keeping track of what is what - they're now used for type parameters, parameters and return values, one after the other with no separation, and two of them are optional. Quite confusing if you ask me.

[Cthulhu_]

And yet, if you think about parsing it, they're all ways to group things together. Avoiding adding reserved characters (see also the discussion about adding ternaries) is a worthy goal to pursue. Keeps the parser(s) simpler too.

An IDE / coloring scheme can help make things look more distinct if need be.

[tapirl]

Comparing it with the builtin hashtable:

* the custom one: hashtable.Table(string, int)

* the builtin one: map[string]int

The syntax forms are quite different. Wouldn't it be better to make them consistent? Is it so hard to achieve this?

[jeremyjh]

It would not surprise me to learn that the parser has special rules for the token "map".

[tapirl]

Yes, the fact that "map" is a keyword and "Table" is not really makes a trouble for parser. But I think we should think towards the road. There should be always a solution.

[mpfundstein]

lisp