On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Henrik Johansson <dahankz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, I am a bit short in this but again my opinion is that experience
> reports wrt generics will only emphasize what is already known. That may in
> itself be a metric and of value.
That may well happen and you are right to call it out. But it's not
so bad to read a bunch of "experience reports" that say essentially
the same thing.
Even for generics experience reports can be valuable. For example,
how important is it to permit parameterized methods of unparameterized
methods. That is, using C++-style <T> syntax:
type S struct {
v interface{}
}
func (p *S) Get<T>() T {
return p.v.(T)
}
Here S is an ordinary type, but it has a method that is parameterized
on the result type T. How important is it that generics in Go support
that feature? And would S satisfy `interface { Get() int }`? It's
hard to say. Since this is kind of abstruse, experience reports may
not help. But, then again, they may.
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.
