On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Eric Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 4:52:54 PM UTC-4, Ian Denhardt wrote: >> >> The trouble is that (in the case where you compile using the implements >> <, rather than throwing an error) the type signature no longer tells you >> what the constraints actually are; this information is only in the body >> of the function, so it's easy to accidentally change it when changing >> something that you think is just implementation detail. > > > Fair enough. But is there any way to have a contract system of *any* kind > that doesn't have the identical problem?
The contract system in the generics design draft does not have this problem. It may have other problems, but it doesn't have this one. The contract specifies exactly what the body of the function is permitted to do, and it specifies a set of requirements on the type arguments at the call site. Changing the body of the function can not affect the call sites. Only changing the contract itself can do that. Ian -- 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.
