>> I don't understand what you are trying to say or achieve. But, to be clear: >> 1. Yes, Go does intentionally not attempt to build a type-system which >> excludes as many bugs as possible statically. >> 2. Yes, there is a possibility that Go software has security bugs that could (or would) have been caught by a more powerful type-system.
I just wanted to make a simple point and not pollute this with any agenda as I am not going to hunt for a bug that matches any other concerns of mine or spend any more time. I care about Go but not to the detriment of other tasks. I will ask one thing and then I am going dark. If generics do help users avoid type erosion then perhaps Generics should be more usable than the current plan and smaller in scope? I don't normally like multiple ways in languages but perhaps there should be both an easier and a more powerful Generics syntax? This is relateable from another thread:) >>> But, hopefully, in the-glorious-future™, this won't be needed anymore. And >>> maybe we can get back to view interfaces as their own type -- 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/f2efecd6-318b-9fe8-c3f7-748a01ceebc7%40gmail.com.
