Quoting Eric Raymond (2018-10-19 14:43:51) > Therefore, as the author of the "implements" proposal, I am declaring > neutrality on whether an "implements" clause should declare an overload > at all! > That is, there is a possible future in which "implements <" on type T� > does not� make a < b legal on non-primitive type T, but is solely a > typeclass declaration associating� T with all other types that > implement <; semantically, a Sortable contract.
What would code making use of a `Sortable` type look like? If you can't actually use "implements <" to overload `<`, it's not clear to me what it would actually do? -- 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.
