On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 3:02 PM Michal Strba <faiface2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ian, have you had the time to evaluate the improvements to my proposal (the > original one in this thread)? I'd love to hear if it has some more significat > shortcomings and know what to think about. Or, if it has no perspective, I'd > love to hear why. > > I know you're busy, so responding with "I haven't had the time yet" is > completely understandable.
I really can't promise to ever fully evaluate all generics proposals. There are simply too many of them. All I can honestly do is throw out some quick comments, as I've done already. If you want detailed feedback, I encourage you to seek it from other people. As I said in my reply to Randall earlier " relying on a general construct like "number" is problematic in Go. There are many different ways to slice up Go's types. "number" is just one of them. There is also integer, signed integer, unsigned integer, comparable, ordered, float, complex. One can even think of addable (includes string) and indexable and sliceable." I'm also still concerned about scoping. You added some text, but it's still unusual in Go for a name that appears in a list to become in scope for the rest of the list and for the following body. 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcUp5Lk%3Djsct6-r%3D0N0L2YYz09YS5AdR9JRKeHz%3D_R1Vuw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
