generics would greatly improve code reuse for many algorithms- this one
fact alone trumps all opposition. In fact, go's builtin container types
have generics-like functionality already. Imagine arrays, slices, maps
without this functionality- exactly, enough said. the arguments against
generics
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, Axel Wagner wrote:
>
> The issue is, that a "KeyValuePair" (no matter if you implemented it
> via generics or like you mention via interfaces) is a fundamentally useless
> type and generics encourage people to add useless types. A "KeyValuePair V>"
I believe this statement violate the code of conduct. I dug deep to refrain
myself from toxic replies. I've read some idiotic crap posted by you on
this mailing list, so you got a crap-ton of nerve to shoot off like that.
This is an interested project. I'd like you to show respect, but if you
c
I'd like to see changes to the standard library. Things that many people
agree should be fixed but thwarted by go1 compat. The list is long and this
mailing list is riddled with them. Possibly weeding out the standard
library, kicking stuff to /x/.
I'd provide generics through preprocessors wra
