I do believe (hope) David was kidding. Anonymous product types (and similar constructs) are the root of all evil.
> On Jan 3, 2021, at 11:32 AM, roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > FWIW I'm certain that the lack of tuples in Go was a very deliberate decision > - one of Go's more significant ancestors, Limbo, had tuples. > Anonymous product types have their disadvantages too (you don't get to name > the members, so code can end up significantly harder to understand), which I > suspect is why Go didn't get them. > > > People will even realize that when you compile this, you don't have to pass > > a pointer to said tuple but can make a choice on calling convention which > > passes such tuples in registers to speed up the system and be as fast as > > any other language. > > I believe that the new register calling convention will do this for structs > FWIW. > > > On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 at 13:25, Jesper Louis Andersen > <jesper.louis.ander...@gmail.com <mailto:jesper.louis.ander...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 9:45 PM da...@suarezhouse.net > <mailto:da...@suarezhouse.net> <da...@suarezhouse.net > <mailto:da...@suarezhouse.net>> wrote: > Real use cases have been provided it appears for both why generics can be > good and how they can be used negligently (love the sextuple example BTW). > > Some future language will invent the idea that you should be able to create > anonymous product types on the fly and use those as return values when you > want multiple return values. They'll even realize once you have anonymous > product types, every function just needs to take a single argument and return > a single argument, since you can just use an anonymous product type (i.e., a > tuple) if you want to pass multiple things. People will even realize that > when you compile this, you don't have to pass a pointer to said tuple but can > make a choice on calling convention which passes such tuples in registers to > speed up the system and be as fast as any other language. > > Then people will have reinvented Standard ML from 1991. > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAGrdgiVJe_2L5QZ13v-SBZq2C7_e6nX8JDCAE23BcpWqGyH99Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAGrdgiVJe_2L5QZ13v-SBZq2C7_e6nX8JDCAE23BcpWqGyH99Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > -- > 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 > <mailto:golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAJhgaci-M2iL%3DjPL2KB3BbhzRahBz4pjDUPjkiTAF_jjza6FAw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAJhgaci-M2iL%3DjPL2KB3BbhzRahBz4pjDUPjkiTAF_jjza6FAw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/E02530D4-7E72-4B1B-AE9A-A86E59F38A4C%40ix.netcom.com.
