> Using colons to denote types is still ugly and feels
> unnecessary.
Yeah, I hear you. My personal experience is that when I look at Go code, I find it hard to parse variable definitions since the type has no separator. But I'm sure if I wrote more Go, it would get easier. I worry that there is a bit more need for Cap'n Proto schemas to be easily readable to newcomers compared to Go code. On the other hand, in Cap'n Proto there is usually an ordinal number separating the name and type anyway (though not always).
So far not many people have complained, but I could definitely be convinced to drop the colon if that's what people want.
> Your last annotation example confuses the @field and
> $annotation syntax-- string $0 :Text $qux;
Yeah, I hear you. My personal experience is that when I look at Go code, I find it hard to parse variable definitions since the type has no separator. But I'm sure if I wrote more Go, it would get easier. I worry that there is a bit more need for Cap'n Proto schemas to be easily readable to newcomers compared to Go code. On the other hand, in Cap'n Proto there is usually an ordinal number separating the name and type anyway (though not always).
So far not many people have complained, but I could definitely be convinced to drop the colon if that's what people want.
> Your last annotation example confuses the @field and > $annotation syntax-- string $0 :Text $qux;
Eek, fix pushed. Thanks!