[email protected] schrieb am Dienstag, 18. August 2020 um 20:47:12
UTC+2:
> We already have a way to express "any of a certain subset of types", which
> are interfaces, so using them for constraints is natural.
>
I'd argue that every type expresses a certain subset of types, not just
interfaces. For the other types the size of the subset just happens to be 1
(each containing just itself). So every type should be usable as
constraint. Types, constraints, ... I don't see a difference anymore.
Constraints are just types used in the type parameter list on the left.
> it's about avoiding a new *concept*.
>
Type lists are still a new concept. Just because they hide inside
interfaces doesn't mean that they are not a new concept. I'd prefer it to
be honest and give them a name, with the possibility to use them as sum
types in the future.
> No, it is neither the same, nor is it nonsensical. `interface{ type int }`
> is any type with *underlying type* `int`, not just `int`. It adds some
> expressive power. I'm not sure how important that expressive power is, but
> it's more than zero.
>
On the go2go.dev branch they recently made a change to use the actual (not
underlying) types of type list elements for interface satisfaction:
https://github.com/golang/go/commit/af48c2e84b52f99d30e4787b1b8d527b5cd2ab64
--
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/96914146-3f4e-4972-a18a-3d6b957acb90n%40googlegroups.com.
