On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:04 PM robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > The opinion that well, since there is no implements I can define my own > interface, and pass some stdlib struct that I can’t control as an > “implementor” is hogwash. Because you also don’t control this code, the API > is free to change - breaking your code. This is why the “backwards > implements” is a bad idea. > I have experience in a millions-of-lines connected code base which uses exactly the strategy that you say can't work. I can confirm that it does work if you use it correctly. -- 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.
