Yes that does help, looks like a really good solution. In your opinion would the resulting code be worthwhile (including all the dictionaries, stubs etc.) when compared to the C++ code expansion method? I can see that it would save for the basic types and types derived from them but once you start getting any sort of structs you're getting towards needing one function per type/combination of types?
(I realise yours is a hypothetical implementation so not expected to be >> complete! Just interested in what your preferred solution is) >> > > Ah > >> >> >> More complete than it looked on the surface :) Jamie -- 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.
