In general, identifiers cannot be accurately resolved without type information.
      Consider, for example, the identifier <code>K</code>
      in <code>T{K: ""}</code>: it could be the name of a local variable
      if T is a map type, or the name of a field if T is a struct type.

      New programs should use the <a href='/pkg/go/types'>go/types</a>
      package to resolve identifiers; see

        is EnumDeclaration -> tryResolve({ it.resolve().qualifiedName }) { inferClassName(unit) }
        is ClassOrInterfaceDeclaration -> tryResolve({ it.resolve().qualifiedName }) { inferClassName(unit) }
        is MethodDeclaration -> tryResolve({ it.resolve().qualifiedSignature }) { "${inferClassName(unit)}.${it.name}()" }
        is AnnotationDeclaration -> tryResolve({ it.resolve().qualifiedName }) { "${inferClassName(unit)}.${it.name}" }

is not enclosed in parentheses, square brackets, or curly braces.
In this rare case, the opening brace of the literal is erroneously parsed
as the one introducing the block of statements. To resolve the ambiguity,
the composite literal must appear within parentheses.
</p>

<pre>
if x == (T{a,b,c}[i]) { … }
if (x == T{a,b,c}[i]) { … }
</pre>

<p>

type T[P (C)] …
type T[P *C|Q] …
…
</pre>

<p>
In these rare cases, the type parameter list is indistinguishable from an
expression and the type declaration is parsed as an array type declaration.
To resolve the ambiguity, embed the constraint in an
<a href="#Interface_types">interface</a> or use a trailing comma:
</p>

<pre>
type T[P interface{*C}] …
type T[P *C,] …
</pre>

<p>