On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 8:02 PM, Russ Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> So it sounds like everyone is in favor of the entire generics proposal and
> all the semantics, and all we have left to hammer out is the bracket
> characters? Do I have that right?
>
> Best,
> Russ
>
I think this thread is specifically about the delimiters (first post is
about using square brackets instead of parentheses), but yeah, seems about
right.
I sort of wish interfaces allowed you to specify a receiver type rather
than requiring reflexive application (even where supported by syntax
sugar). Essentially:
type CustomOrdered interface(R) {
Less(other R) bool
}
instead of
type CustomOrdered[type T] interface {
Less(other T) bool
}
However, this is similar to type lists in interfaces in that it would make
the interface only usable as a constraint, since otherwise the receiver
type isn't known at compile time. The current design sidesteps this by
requiring you to specify a specific type argument in order to use the
interface as a type, even if the resulting interface type isn't terribly
useful. Reflexive application only works when using the interface as a
constraint.
>
--
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CANjmGJvZ3zbptYmFep%3Dex9uRbFEo16qvuUH_jL8aUqOLcA1mAA%40mail.gmail.com.
