Quoting Marko Ristin-Kaufmann (2018-11-27 10:29:15)
> if you could call template hacks really dependent types...
You really couldn't, they're entirely different beasts.
> I expect most applications to need wider family of behavioral contracts
> -- and I doubt that Go would ever support them natively lest there's a
> decision to sacrifice simplicity for modeling correct programs. At the
> company I work at we are currently pretty happy with run-time
> enforcement of the contracts and I'm not even sure whether a static
> checker would be a huge benefit.
Sure, for some things capturing the invariant statically is cumbersome
enough that you get more millage out of `if(...) { panic(...) }`, and it
seems like these contracts are basically syntactic sugar over that --
which is fine. My comments were in the context that Dan had originally
asked about static mechanisms.
> Having something like Optional type would be probably the most
> important contribution to the correctness to prevent nil pointer errors
> (and make writing a static checker easier), but I suppose that would be
> possible with any sort of generic types in Go2.
The problem with doing this in Go: What is the zero value of a
non-optional pointer? (If I were doing a clean-slate Go, I'd probably
leave zero-values out, but I'm not).
--
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.
