[jcelerier]

every language designer who does not understand c++ is doomed to reinvent it

I mean, seriously,

    func F[T any](p T) { ... }

[pkaye]

What is wrong with that syntax?

[jcelerier]

? nothing is wrong, it's just a different way to spell

    template<typename T>
    void F(T p) { ... }

[esarbe]

No, not acually.

Generics in Go are vastly different than templates in C++. They might be used for similar things, but whereas Go's generics actually build up on Go's structural typing, templates are ... something completely different again.

I mean; C++ templates are Turing complete. They are in the same ballpark as Scala's type machinery. And I say that with adoration.

[jcelerier]

> I mean; C++ templates are Turing complete.

that's not a very high milestone to achieve. Even java generics are turing complete (https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05274)

[esarbe]

Holy crap, indeed!

The older I get, the more icky I find subtyping. It just makes things messy...

[moocowtruck]

can i say T : SomeConstraint ?

[jcelerier]

in C++ ? sure

    template<SomeConstraint T>
    void F(T p) { ... }

or just

    void F(SomeConstraint auto p) { ... }

like this for instance: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/hPM38T

[moocowtruck]

cool, can i even add two constraints? or is it limited to one. Oh i see you have include concepts, is that new to c++20 then?

[tomlu]

This proposal is fundamentally different from C++ templates as they exist today. You don't just chuck a type in there and let the compiler have a go at it, SFINAE style.