Andy Balholm <[email protected]>:
> It seems to me that what you are proposing with “implements” is not really a
> replacement for contracts. It would do something that contracts don’t (unify
> operators and methods), and it wouldn’t do nearly all of what contracts do
> (clearly define what is expected of type parameters across a wide range of
> possible operations).
I don't understand the the grounds of this objection. Can you pose some cases
you think implements couldn't cover?
--
<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.
