Hi. Maybe you can use encapsulation instead of standalone function and generics. Encapsulation is a fundamental principle in software engineering. It controls which parts of a package are visible from the outside and which are not. It hides implementation details, allowing changes that do not affect dependent code.
Check it out: https://go.dev/play/p/xqwMPgB0IND I really hope I can help you. Cheers. Cleberson Em terça-feira, 15 de outubro de 2024 às 21:01:42 UTC-3, Robert Engels escreveu: > Hi, > > Is there someway of doing this with Go generics? > https://github.com/robaho/cpp_fixed/blob/6770b217acd84e4b723449e4c4bb42c92e7f2af1/fixed.h#L18-L23 > > I could make the type and interface and add a method for ‘decimal places’, > but I would like all of the constants to be resolved at compile time. > > Also, if I make it an interface, it is far less efficient than passing a > single int64 with generics and letting the compiler figure it out. > > I know constexpr is not available, but I would think that if I could do it > with methods the compiler would eventually inline the function calls anyway > - possibly as constants. > > I read through the docs, and it doesn’t seem possible. > > I got it kind of working here https://go.dev/play/p/5ztum5NAkUp but I > would really like it to be method based rather than standalone function > based, and the method based I would seemingly need to duplicate a lot of > code for every possible number of decimal places. > > What am I missing? Ideas? > > Thanks for the help. > -- 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/fb1a8dd2-e1d6-499d-aabb-683afc8720a1n%40googlegroups.com.