Specific associated types: Foo<Bar=Baz> or Foo<Bar = Baz>?

[chris-morgan]

Two options:

1. Foo<Bar=Baz>
2. Foo<Bar = Baz>

I think the second is more consistent with what we’ve done in the past and prefer it myself, but the first appears at present to be considerably more common in the Rust repository. (Bear in mind—this note existing because I disagree with the actions taken, of course—that this expresses the opinions of a very few!)

Sample regular expressions to search with to find probable matches (PCRE needed, I used ag):

1. (?<!type )(?<![:&$.])(?<![:={] )(?<!\blet )\b[A-Z][A-Za-z]+ = [A-Z<] (approximately 130 genuine matches)
2. (?<!type )(?<![:&$.])(?<![:={] )(?<!\blet )\b[A-Z][A-Za-z]+=[A-Z<] (approximately two genuine matches)

[Gankra]

The first being common is largely a case of us being lazy, I think. The second style is more clearly consistent with all other guidelines. It just makes an already verbose syntax even more verbose, which makes me sad.

[hauleth]

Personally I prefer second option. Although it verbosity, it is more consistent and clear. Also clarity/verboseness ratio is good enough to consider it as a good practise.

[tbu-]

I'd prefer the first option here, similar to python's PEP 8. IMO it should be treated like keyword parameters.

[donsignore]

Wouldn't Foo <Bar=Baz> reflect the intention more semantically?

If i recall correctly keyword arguments in python are also meant to be bound closely without a space.