I do like using interfaces only, and having the language declare some built-in ones and automatically map them to the operators. A problem is that for consistency they should go both ways... and then you end up with operator overloading which I've never been a fan of because people use it to write really obtuse code.
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 3:08:48 AM UTC-5, Charlton Trezevant 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
