Yes, adding methods to instantiated generic types would have some
similarities to (partial) template specialization in C++.
Having concluded that it was a bad idea anyway from the earlier discussion,
I'm glad it's not going to be allowed :)
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 6:45:29 PM UTC+1, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:04 AM, roger peppe <rogp...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> >> func (x Foo(int)) Bar() {}
> >
> > As I understand it, this would be technically allowed, but would not
> > mean what you think.
> >
> > This is defining a method Bar on the Foo type, and "int" is declaring
> > a name for the type parameter defined in the definition of Foo. That
> > name would shadow the global language built-in int type name, in the
> > same way that it's currently valid in Go to do this
> > (https://play.golang.org/p/fMwGrRnJEOt):
> >
> > type int otherType
> >
> > I don't see any ambiguity here.
>
> Yes.
>
> I think this general topic is what C++ calls template specialization.
> The design draft explicitly does not support specialization. This is
> listed in the "Omissions" section. Specialization is a step toward
> template metaprogramming, which is a direction that I personally think
> Go should avoid.
>
> Ian
>
--
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.
