On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Patrick Smith <pat42sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> First, please consider requiring the 'type' keyword in definitions of
> methods on generic types:
>
> func (x Foo(type T)) method() {}
>
> This adds a small amount of verbiage, but makes the intent crystal clear. It
> also allows for easy extension of the syntax if some far future version of
> the language does allow adding methods to template instantiations.Interesting idea, but even if we adopt specialization it seems to me that an ordinary non-specialized method is the normal case, and a method specialized to a specific type is the unusual case. We should try to avoid making the normal case be more verbose. 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.
