Hmmn, we may be thinking different things... I *think* I'm looking for a
way to say "an X of Y", and see composition as a possible approach.
I just don't know if it will be a, the, or not the answer (;-))
--dave
On 24/03/17 11:21 PM, Michael Jones wrote:
I think I was saying that what I seem to want personally is the "simple,
weak, slight" thing that you likely see as failure.
The opposite end of that--where everything is a list and can be composed
without special regard (lisp) or everything is an object that can
receive any message (smalltalk) are comfortable for me, but just not
what I find myself wanting very often.
My own view is not important in the sense that a broad survey would be,
but since it seems much less than what people seem to dream of, I wanted
to share that maybe people could be happy with less than they seek.
Or maybe that ultimate typeless generality is what others really need
somehow. I would not know.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:13 PM David Collier-Brown <davecb...@gmail.com
<mailto:davecb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
We still don't understand genrality: the current generics are
unimpressive. The proposals for Go are typically "let's do something
that has failed already, in hopes that trying it agin will have a
different result". That, alas, is one of the definitions of insanity.
Due caution is advised!
--
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
<mailto:golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Michael T. Jones
michael.jo...@gmail.com <mailto:michael.jo...@gmail.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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
