I swear I didn't know about that feedback when I just wrote this ;) https://blog.merovius.de/2018/09/05/scrapping_contracts.html (i did know about Matt's post and mention it)
I hoped to provide a somewhat extensive argument about why I don't really "like" contracts and how interface-based type-parameters can provide the same type-safety guarantees and power as the contract design. I'm not sure I mention anything new, though, at this point (damn you, real life, preventing me from writing this down earlier ^^) On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:46 PM alanfo <alan.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > This idea has similarities to feedback > <https://gist.github.com/alanfo/2298656cbe19dfa95472bfbbf421ff69> I've > provided myself on the Go 2 generics draft design. > > However, I've tried to marry it with interfaces and have used the > expression 'type group' rather than 'typeclass' so nobody would accuse me > of trying to make Go more like Haskell! > > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:57:02 PM UTC+1, Matt Sherman wrote: >> >> Here’s a riff on generics focused on builtin typeclasses (instead of user >> contracts): https://clipperhouse.com/go-generics-typeclasses/ >> >> Feedback welcome. >> > -- > 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. > -- 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.
