Another huge feature in the works, thank you.

Can there be more than 26 capital letters to draw a type
variable name from? Maybe some trailing digits can be
optionally allowed after the first and only letter. It may
aid grouping multiple identifiers for a common type, e.g.:

vim9scriptdef Add<T1, T2, T3>(x: T1,y: T2): T3return<T3>(x+y)enddefecho Add<number, number, number>(1,2)echo Add<float, float, float>(1.0,2.0)

If there are plans to gradually introduce support for
generic classes, methods, and lambda expressions, it will
soon become more feasible to use up all 26 letters, e.g.:

vim9scriptclass MendclassclassNendclassclass OendclassclassPendclassclass Qendclassexportclass Framework<A, B, C, D, E>def_new(F:func,G:func)throw'TODO'enddefstaticdef Init<I, J, K, L, R>(F:func,G:func, H:func): Framework<I, J, K, L, R>return Framework._new<I, J, K, L, R>(F((t:<T>,u:<U>,v:<V>,w:<W>)=>H(t,u,v,w)),G((s:<S>,x:<X>,y:<Y>, z:<Z>)=>H(s,x,y, z)))enddefendclass

Can these issues be looked into?

vim9scriptinterface I    def string(): stringendinterfaceclass Aendclassclass B extends A implements I    def string(): string        return "B"    enddefendclass# FIXME: This declaration is ambiguous (in the presence of class A)  # and should be rejected because the type variable A cannot be used  # in the function body unless it shadows the identifier of class A.   # In other words, another type variable name should be chosen (see   # below) or the function should lose its generic variable and become  # a non-generic function (see further below).def GenericString1<A>(o: A): string    return o.string()enddefdefcompile GenericString1def GenericString2<T>(o: T): string    return o.string()enddefecho GenericString2<B>(B.new())# OK...echo GenericString2<I>(B.new())# FIXME: E1325?  The method dispatch works for "I" (above) and doesn't  # work for "A".  Either reject both calls since subtype instances "B"  # are passed or correct dispatching for "A".echo GenericString2<A>(B.new())def NonGenericString(o: any): string    return string(o)enddef# FIXME: No parsing error?echo NonGenericString<number>(null)

Foo<string, number>('abc', 10)

I wonder if it would be feasible to implement type inference (maybe later, not necessarily now):

Foo('abc', 10)" or maybeFoo<>('abc', 10)

is it just new structure of function in vim9script?

WOW no errors

is it just new structure of function in vim9script?

A generic function allows you to operate on different types of data without losing type checks and
reduces code duplication. For a general description of this in different programming languages,
you can refer to the following pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_function
https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/2/generics.html
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/generics/types.html
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/extensions/generics-cpp-component-extensions?view=msvc-170
https://dart.dev/language/generics
https://go.dev/doc/tutorial/generics

vim9scriptdef Foo<T>(a: T)varb: T=aenddefdef Foo

outputs

   def <SNR>65_Foo(a: any)1    var b: T = a   enddef

vim9scriptdef Foo<T>(a: T)varb: T=aenddefdef Foo

Off topic, I didn't know, or had forgotten, thatdef Foo outputs annotated source of the function.

Doesn't seem to be documented.

vim9scriptdef Bar<T>()echomsg"Bar"enddefvar B= Bar<string>disassemble B

outputs

Error detected while processing /tmp/gen.vim:line   18:E1061: Cannot find function B

Thanks for reporting this issue. This issue should be addressed in the latest updated PR.

Set and List operations can now be generified (see below)!

Supporting generic constructors forenums is hardly of any priority right now, but I hope, together withprotected constructors forabstract classes andenums, this may be revisited at a later date.

Congratulations and thank you for developing this feature,@yegappan.

(list.vim)
(set.vim)

Thanks for creating these example scripts. This exposed some existing memory leaks which were tricky to fix.
All of these should be addressed now in the latest updated PR.

It is nice that constructors can be parameterised like other functions and methods:

(example_k.vim)
Creatingenum values with a generic constructor then doesn't seem far-fetched (E1123):

This is supported now in the latest updated PR.

I'm glad that this is taken care of. Oops, I don't have any
broken code to share.

I'm glad that this is taken care of. Oops, I don't have any broken code to share.

Thanks for continuously testing and reporting the problems.

Thanks, so I assume this is ready now?

@yegappan, I'm sorry about that merge commit, I haven't the faintest idea where that came from. You may want to force push again.

I have a 22 year old cat with hyperthyroidism and a love of keyboard dancing as my initial suspect.

@yegappan, I'm sorry about that merge commit, I haven't the faintest idea where that came from. You may want to force push again.

I have a 22 year old cat with hyperthyroidism and a love of keyboard dancing as my initial suspect.

No problem. I did a force push again.

Thanks, so I assume this is ready now?

@chrisbra Yes. This PR is ready.

@yegappan and@chrisbra, I don't really consider it a blocker but, just in case it's been overlooked, function listing still needs some work.

See:#17313 (comment)

thanks all. Let me merge it and we can do further improvements with a followup PR for the function listing.