On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:49 AM Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Patrick Smith <pat42sm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > First, please consider requiring the 'type' keyword in definitions of
> > methods on generic types:
> >
> > func (x Foo(type T)) method() {}
> >
> Interesting idea, but even if we adopt specialization it seems to me
> that an ordinary non-specialized method is the normal case, and a
> method specialized to a specific type is the unusual case. We should
> try to avoid making the normal case be more verbose.
>
My own preference would be to require the keyword. But this is a very minor
point and definitely not worth arguing about at this stage, so I've added a
note to the feedback page and will now shut up about it.
--
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.
