On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:11 PM, <groenendaa...@gmail.com> wrote: > That works for me! Thanks for your answer. Difficult for humans to reason > about + difficult to implement seems like a decent reason to leave it out > :). > In general, do you think covariant types are more trouble than they're > worth? > I don't think I've ever encountered them before (or if I did, I didn't > realize > what they were) so I can't say much on the subject.
I suppose I think that covariant types can be useful in a language that defines a strict type hierarchy and supports method overloading. Once you support method overloading, and once you have a hierarchy that clearly defines how types are related, covariant types don't add much additional complexity. Ian -- 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
