On 3/17/21 1:57 PM, Axel Wagner wrote: > No, I am saying that your assumptions that generics pose a problem is wrong. > There is no technical reason that would prevent the authors of TinyGo to > implement them, without too much trouble. Certainly far less trouble than > other > language features they already support.
That is not what you said or meant and I didn't make an assumption. > > AIUI that's also the answer you got from them, so I don't understand the > confusion. s/confusion/question/ That you ignored I was basically asking if TinyGo and Go should communicate more. I assume from what you have said, that you disagree. -- 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/e92fef38-42c9-e68f-e42f-813a961d0063%40gmail.com.
