Re: [RFC] Typed array declarations

Hey there Matheus, plus: we may need to use turbofish syntax like array::<int, Product> > to avoid issues with the parser. I didn't dive too much, but I don't think it's needed and we could make the array syntax work like proposed in the RFC. I don’t know where this fear comes from. I have monomorphized generics > implemented in a branch already using the standard C<T> syntax and it works > great. Combined with the struct proposal I also am sitting on until 8.6 is > finalized, they combine to form strongly-typed value-type data structures.. Exactly, I think this is very much doable, and since you already have a working branch with that working shows that it is, thanks Holly. *---* *Best Regards,* *Wendell Adriel.* *Software Engineer & Architect* *https://wendelladriel.com <https://wendelladriel.com>* Em qua., 22 de jul. de 2026 às 04:19, Holly Schilling < holly.a.schilling@outlook.com> escreveu: > > > plus: we may need to use turbofish syntax like array::<int, > > Product> > > to avoid issues with the parser. > > I don’t know where this fear comes from. I have monomorphized generics > implemented in a branch already using the standard C<T> syntax and it works > great. Combined with the struct proposal I also am sitting on until 8.6 is > finalized, they combine to form strongly-typed value-type data structures..