Thank you, I see your point. This is less powerful than contracts, but Go
proved me that less is more, as long as it is enough. My point is: do we really
need a so powerful version of generics or maybe operators and interfaces are
enough?
For the many keywords added and to manage conversions, we could add just add
the keyword "operator":
type MyInterface (type T) {
operator +(T, T);
operator float64(T);
operator T[int] string;
}
Of course with this approach we have to take operator overloading in, and it's
much more than what is now in the proposal (maybe contradicting my initial
statement).
Also, I agree with Eric that the Go team always surprised me for the elegance
of their work and I'm sure they will provide a better solution than what I
could think. I'm just surprised of the overlap between contracts and
interfaces, at least as I understand them... It seems to me to break that
elegance.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
