On Friday, 1 July 2016 10:32:20 UTC+3, Øyvind Teig wrote: > > I assume the scope of the discussion about introducing generics is not how > Go-generics might hypothetically be transformed to idiomatic Go. I find no > reference to "unsafe" in neither of these (already mentioned here): > > - "Proposal: Go should have generics" by Ian Lance Taylor > https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/15292-generics.md > > - "proposal: generic programming facilities" by Andrew Gerrand > https://github.com/golang/go/issues/15292 > > Neither do I find any mention of "reflect", which I assume might be > relevant. > > From this I infer that adding generics to Go is a rather large affair. It > also looks like that in the pages above. > > More interesting, I don't see formal modeling verification mentioned in > any of the generics-documents above, neither in this recent thread: > > - "formal verification in Go? someday perhaps?" at > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/MVITBF3TcOE > > I know that Rob Pike was involved with formal verification since long > ("Bell Labs and CSP Threads", by Russ Cox, see > https://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/) and that this background was colouring > much of how Go ended up. Has generics been discussed along this line: that > Go-generics might be more/less suitable for formal verification? >
I haven't seen such discussion. I can't even recall even seeing anywhere such formal verification system (one that is based on generics and isn't dependently typed). It's an interesting thought, but I cannot even imagine how to bind together generics and *(non-trivial)* formal verification. *And then ... a formal verficiation implementation that doesn't slow down compilation.* > Øyvind > > fredag 1. juli 2016 06.30.35 UTC+2 skrev Andrew Mezoni følgende: >> >> >> it can be done with using unsafe >> >> This is the only available method (and very suitable). >> The same method used throughout in the Go language the runtime. >> It's very easy to do that. >> >> Problem only to find appropriate syntax for the current Go grammar for to >> be look as idiomatic Go. >> I still not found that but I am still looking (this even is a bigger >> problem than "how to implement them?"). >> > -- 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.
