Mmmh, :/ depends. What is the type of IntMin for the compiler in your
example? The same as Min?
If not, it is basically defining a regular function out of a generic
function definition.
So it is merely about constraining the type parameter further to be of
specific type int.
A simple closure would be a sensible way to deal with it easily. In
general, one would define a general closure function with new type
parameters that have aditional constraints.
Trying to see type parameters more like concrete types and interface types,
just with different constraints enforced at compile-time than those of
types and interface types.
Could make brackets redundant.
On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 11:22:51 PM UTC+1 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 3:19 PM atd...@gmail.com <atd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Since, we also know the type of v, It would be infered from it.
> >
> > There is no variance, no dependent type... Meaning that the type of a Go
> variable does not change.
> > So the constraints do not change midway through the program, including
> type names/definitions.
> >
> > It does however require to have something that resemble a type
> definition beforehand.
> > A type parameter definition.
>
> In some cases it can be inferred. But what about cases where it
> can't? And what if I want to write
>
> // IntMin is a function with type func(int, int) int.
> var IntMin = Min[int]
>
> ?
>
> The constraints don't change midway through a program, but in your
> example the meaning of T does change.
>
> Ian
>
>
> > On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 10:41:15 PM UTC+1 Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 2:17 PM atd...@gmail.com <atd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Quick question...
> >> >
> >> > Why do we need brackets to define a parametered function, struct
> etc...?
> >> >
> >> > Why not change Go kinds to accept either a type (would produce a
> regular, function, structs, etc) or a new type parameter object that would
> implement the constraints (would produce a generic function definition)
> >> >
> >> > for instance,
> >> >
> >> > type parameter T
> >> >
> >> > // [...] some way to add constraint to T
> >> >
> >> > func Max(v T) T{...}
> >> >
> >> > What are the brackets for? Just an idea.
> >>
> >> Each call to Max can use a different value for T. We can call
> >> Max[int] and Max[string]. How would we do that with this notation?
> >>
> >> A type parameter really is a parameter to the function. Making it
> >> syntactically similar to other non-type parameters seems like a good
> >> idea to me.
> >>
> >> 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...@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/5713130f-20c7-4b70-ba8f-2e9be22cb9c9n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
--
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/5eb1bc1e-49a3-4340-83b2-a375b0ad65b4n%40googlegroups.com.
