I prefer seeing the contract by example over having a combination of two
dozens of interface names like Eq, Lesser, Adder, Muler, Convertible(x),
Ranger, Lener, Caper, ... that have to be mentally mapped to their actual
syntactic representation. This smells like taxonomy ("the lowest form of
academic work" ;)
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 10:14:48 UTC+2, Tristan Colgate wrote:
>
> It's a great read, clarified stuff for me. An approach that embraces
> interfaces feels preferable to me.
>
>
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2018, 09:09 'Charlton Trezevant' via golang-nuts, <
> golan...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Link: [Getting specific about generics, by Emily Maier](
>> https://emilymaier.net/words/getting-specific-about-generics/)
>>
>> The interface-based alternative to contracts seems like such a natural
>> fit- It’s simple, straightforward, and pragmatic. I value those aspects of
>> Go’s philosophy and consider them to be features of the language, so it’s
>> encouraging to see a solution that suits them so well. The author also does
>> a great job of contextualizing the use cases and debate around generics,
>> which I found incredibly helpful.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> 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...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
--
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.
