[kstrauser]

> The grammar could've used `Generic[Specific]` with square brackets and avoided the need for the turbo fish.

But then people would grouse about it using left-bracket and right-bracket as brackets in a type "context".

[GoblinSlayer]

The problem here is that angle brackets are semantics dependent syntax. Whether they are brackets or not depends on semantic context. Conversely square brackets are always brackets.

[steveklabnik]

Square brackets would be semantically dependent if they appeared in the same position of angle brackets. There's nothing magical about [] that makes the problems with <> disappear.

[GoblinSlayer]

It disappears the problem that angle brackets are sometimes not brackets. I.e. a<b>c is parsed as (a<b)>c or as (a(<b>))c.

[xscott]

It also comes up when you want compile time expressions as parameters to your generics:

    // nice and clean
    let a = Generic[T, A > B]::new(); 

    // gross curlies needed because of poor choices
    let a = Generic::<T, {A > B}>::new();

[kstrauser]

So that’s the Specificth element of Generic?

[GoblinSlayer]

It's Brackets(Generic,Specific).

[xscott]

Lol, yes they would. However, I wouldn't. :-)