robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com>:
> Which is why I believe this can happen with existing interfaces and compiler
> magic. (along with my other proposal regarding carrying the concrete type in
> slices).
>
> You can do operator overloading and type conversion with interfaces.
> (although not a big fan of operator overloading…)
>
> Method overloading requires no new keywords.
>
> Generic collections can probably be implemented with interfaces (Iterable for
> the range keyword, Equality, Comparable) and some compiler magic.
>
> No new keywords or syntax needed.
Right. Count me solidly in favor of this minimalist direction.
This morning, casting about for a "how to do it right" example, I
invented a way to implement sum types using composition and some
simple field-resolution rules. Zero new syntax. If I'm feeling brave when
my Python translation is finished I may present it here.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
--
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.
