On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 1:23:20 PM UTC-4, Dave MacFarlane wrote: > > Why is the implements keyword a better solution than magic names? > Because you get syntactic uniformity with primitive types without claiming namespace you don't need. It's more minimalist.
Would there be any rules defined for relationships between operators? > For instance, if the "<" operator is defined does "<=" come for free > or does it require a separate overloading? (If so, what about ">"?) > Good heavens, no - < doesn't imply a definition of >. That kind of spooky side effect would be extremely un-Go-like. Besides, you don't want it. There are lots of uses for partial orderings. I would say >= is defined if and only if == and >= are defined and cannot be separately overloaded. But I'd be open to argument on that point. -- 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.
