Type parameters

[cqcallaw]

See also https://gist.github.com/cqcallaw/6de8bbb25599a1a71d34c7638ef40fe7

[cqcallaw]

This would be particularly interesting in combination with tagged unions, something like (placeholder syntax):

struct error {
    code:int
    message:string
}

sum result {
    value:int
    error:error
}

[cqcallaw]

Classic C-family <t_arg1, t_arg> syntax is ambiguous for function invocation expressions.

[cqcallaw]

Options seem to be:

1. Use different bracketing symbols
2. Put the type arguments inside the existing argument list, separated from value args by some separator (e.g. (t_arg1, t_arg2 & v_arg1:type, v_arg2:type) -> t_arg1 { })
3. Make types first-class citizens

[cqcallaw]

So far, using of <t_param1, t_param2> seems best.

[cqcallaw]

Another consideration: is it legal to vary function variants by type parameters only?

[cqcallaw]

Also, do type aliases include the type parameters? Right now, I think type aliases should not include type parameters

[cqcallaw]

Another edge case: parameterized record types with parameterized function members