On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 3:42:51 PM UTC+2, Øyvind Teig wrote: > > The suggestions of generics discussed here and in the referenced > documentation, will it be possible to compile the "Go-with-generics" > language into some idiomatic Go and compile it with the standard compiler? > (I guess *what* idiomatic means is the real question here..). Or would it > break idiomatic Go? > > it can be done with using unsafe
> If it won't break it, wouldn't it be better to add some of this instead of > leaving some of these important matters out? (I have read a guy mention > concurrency and Haskell; the language is so flexible that it may be added > any way. And it has. So there is no standard way for it) > > Also, would it be possible to add generics around channels to (limit their > functionality I assume (like not legal to address both sides of a channel > in the same goroutine (I know it's sometimes nice)))? > > And make formal analysis (like transformation from Go-with-generics to > CSPm) easier? > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
