Burak Serdar <[email protected]>:
> So the question is: do we really need to declare exactly what the
> implementation of a generic needs in the contract, or is it sufficient
> to say "use this with values that are like type X"?
I think the additional explicitness of "implements" is valuable. And
my syntax is lighter-weight than yours - which in a language like Go
that highly values parsimony has some significance.
That said, the shared idea of defining contracts via implied typeclasses
is, I think, more important than the ways in which our proposals differ.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
--
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.
