On Sunday, 26 March 2017 15:30:30 UTC+3, Mandolyte wrote: > > @Bakul - is your approach documented in Egon's collection? I think it is > essentially the same as Egon's at > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/JThDpFJftCY/1MqzfeBjvT4J > > Perhaps your syntax is cleaner, simpler. I also like this general > approach. In Egon's document, this approach has nearly no downsides. >
Depending what do you want to use generics for, there are significant downsides. Mainly, you cannot create chained general purpose functions... e.g. LINQ, Rx... *in the summary document see problems "functional code" and "language extensions".* You could argue that using such approaches is not good for Go... but this wouldn't invalidate that this generics approach doesn't solve these problems nicely. You are always making trade-offs. *Personally, I think it makes trade-offs that are suitable to Go... but I understand why people would disagree with it.* -- 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.
