On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Rick <thesuggestednamesareaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ replacing "operator" by "method" since that seems to be what was intended ] > Is support for [method] overloading implied by support for generics? No. > Is it > possible to have one with the other? Yes, they are entirely independent. > To be honest, I've been more bothered > by the lack of [method] overloading than by the absence of generics. And (I > assume) no new syntax would be required to support overloading. Or would > there? I don't think any new syntax would be required. But there is no serious proposal on the table for method overloading, and the language made an explicit decision on the matter early on: https://golang.org/doc/faq#overloading . Not that we could never change it, but it would need a very strong argument. 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.
