On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:18 PM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > I disagree with the premise that we need operators for generics - when I > think of "generics", I usually think of "type-safe, constrained, parametric > polymorphism". Without operators, generic code would still fulfill that > definition. I agree that being able to use operators would make generics far > more convenient and require less boilerplate. And I agree that that means we > probably want to have them for generic code. But saying they are > fundamentally needed IMO over constrains the design space.
It does constrain the design space, but, as I've said elsewhere, I believe that an implementation of generics that does not let us write the Min or Contains functions would be laughed out of court. Of course Min and Contains don't have to use the same mechanism as that supporting type-safe parametric polymorphism, but they do have to exist one way or another. 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.
