On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 1:53 PM burak serdar <bser...@computer.org> wrote:
> Would it be possible to make it explicit instead of trying to combine
> builtin types and others?
>
> type Number interface {
> type int, int8, int16, int32, int64, unit, int8, int16, int32,
> uint64, float32, float64
> }
>
> func Min(type T Number)(a, b, T) {
...
> }
>
> type Lessable interface {
> func LessThan(interface{}) bool
> }
>
> func Min(type T Lessable(T))(a, b T) {
...
> }
>
> This would be similar to c++ template specialization. Specializations
> could be limited to built-in types to limit ambiguity.
>
> }
There are two problems with this. First, it would require either a
concept of "this or that" in interfaces, or duplicating all code that
calls Min, however indirectly. This or that:
type NumberOrLessable interface {
// Satisfied by any type that satisfies either Number or Lessable
Number | Lessable
}
func [type T NumberOrLessable](a, b, c T) T {
return Min(a, Min(b, c))
}
Or code duplication based on the interface that T satisfies:
func [type T Number](a, b, c T) T {
return Min(a, Min(b, c))
}
func [type T Lessable](a, b, c T) T {
return Min(a, Min(b, c))
}
Second, Ian has long indicated strong opposition to specialization, as
I think have others.
--
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/CAADvV_thEhOEmGjZR%2Bns4RVOS70UdZOhYs2r1fttgTFpbAFNtw%40mail.gmail.com.
