Yeah that's why I was about how operators were the primary reason interfaces couldn't work out.
Your proposal doesn't include operators, which was the reason interfaces aren't used. Syntax in Go is pretty important, which I imagine is the reason that operators didn't work out. I'm working on another proposal with a `self` type introduced which should be simple. The issue with a `self` type is that interfaces are comparable with every other comparable value, so it can't be used in that case... I'll figure something out haha. On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 1:42:25 PM UTC-4, Ian Denhardt wrote: > > Hmm, I suppose I imagined having read a deeper reason than syntax :/. > That does seem like an incredibly shallow reason to introduce a whole > new non-orthogonal concept (I see others have attempted to tackle the > syntax issue, including yourself). > > There are actually deeper difficulties than syntax with using interfaces > to capture the built-in operators, in that some of them have semantics > that can't be captured as methods. One approach is to only use > interfaces to describe "well-behaved" operators, leaving the rest as > special constructs that can't be abstracted over, like today. But `==` > falls into this category, since it works on both pointers and structs, > and does different things -- whereas it is not generally possible for a > method M to do different things for type T vs type *T. > > The design I sketched actually just punts on operators entirely, which I > don't like but I think is better than where contracts put us (esp. since > you still can't actually define alternative notions of `<` with > contracts, just abstract over existing ones, so it doesn't even give you > much extra expressive power)`. I'd like to find a good solution to the > operator problem though. > -- 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.
