On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 4:17:36 PM UTC-4, Ian Denhardt wrote: > > What is this intended to buy us? Is this as Ian T suggests in lieu of > any kind of contract system?
Oh , no. You *need* a contract system (or at least my implements clause) so you can know if a < b has a meaning when a and b are non-primitive types. > I outlined a similar thing in another thread, where you use a lexical > convention to distinguish type variables from concrete types, so you > don't need an explicit parameter list. I will admit that this is my fallback position if deducing any-type arguments from the unboundedness of the type identifier is too brash for this crew, That is, some kind of lexical marking of generic arguments seems to me greatly preferable to the Taylor/Griesemer syntax, which (with due respect to those two gentlemen) I think is just plain ugly. > > -- 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.
