On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Rob Pike <r...@golang.org> wrote:
>
> Would this work?
>
> contract unsigned(u T) {
> 1 << u
> }
>
> It's another infelicitous horror, but I believe it exploits the only place
> in the language where an unsigned integer is required.
Yes, that would also work (pace issue #19113). But this is a game of
code golf. Why is it useful to say "this polymorphic function may
only be instantiated with unsigned integer types?" Conversely, should
we be looking for ways to remove this kind of generality from
contracts? As you know, we had an earlier system for that, but it
required adding a number of new concepts to the language; the current
design draft adds very few concepts, but has the disadvantage of
possibly excessive generality.
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.
