An interesting and (for me at least) novel approach to contract-free generics.
Despite the suggestions towards the end, it's still too verbose for my taste but I did find it reassuring that, even without operator overloading (Eric's proposal), there would still be a plausible way to write generic functions which unified built-in and user defined types. Alan On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 11:34:10 AM UTC+1, Patrick Smith wrote: > > Yet another generics discussion at > https://gist.github.com/pat42smith/ccf021193971f6de6fdb229d68215302 > > This one looks at what programmers would be able to do if very basic > generics were added to Go, without contracts. Generic functions may not use > methods or operators of their type parameters. > > The answer is quite a lot, actually. The code would be verbose, but not > impossibly so. > -- 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.
