On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 8:06:31 PM UTC-4, alanfo wrote: > > Thanks for your comments, Jonathan. > > I did in fact deal with all the cases you mention in my 'fuller' proposal: > > https://gist.github.com/alanfo/5da5932c7b60fd130a928ebbace1f251 > > where I'd used a device to restrict the built-ins to just one following > criticism by Ian that an earlier proposal I'd made had too many of them (it > had 14). > > However, I decided instead to restrict the built-ins to a reasonable > number (6) in the simplified proposal which meant that many of them had to > go. >
Your 'fuller' proposal says that you can "or" the builtins together. But if you have that, you can get rid of many of them. For instance, "complex" is just "complex64 or complex128". > > The example you mentioned was taken from the draft design paper and didn't > compile for int8 there either. > Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "compile" because it's ambiguous. Neither your Add1K nor the draft design's can be instantiated for int8. However, the draft design Add1K is valid with respect to its contract. Yours isn't, because the contract admits int8 but the function doesn't. -- 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.
