I meant to say contract not interface. Also as a user of said generic routine how do I know all of the available method on a type I would need to implement as I don’t know which ones the method may be using...
Interfaces solve the latter as I need to implement all of them in order to be an interface. > On Oct 18, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Robert Engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > I think the problem with the proposal is that it is going to be very hard for > the compiler to know all of the operations a type can perform since for > concrete types the methods can be spread across multiple files. With an > interface it is only declared in a single location. > >> On Oct 18, 2018, at 2:20 AM, Beoran <beo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think the idea we should focus on here is "The type is the contract". >> Instead of specifying a contract though operations, just use concrete types, >> including primitive types to specify the desired qualities of the generic >> type. >> >> Op donderdag 18 oktober 2018 08:52:30 UTC+2 schreef kortschak: >>> >>> If you require that a single like type applies to all the labels in the >>> parameter declaration, such that func f(a, b T like int, c, d T2 like >>> string) means a and be must be like T's instantiating type, and c and d >>> must be like T2's unstantiating type, then you get that. >>> >>> If you only require a single like for any type T, something like func >>> f(in T like int) (out T), then you get the type safety on return. >>> >>> Of course, this takes you back essentially to contracts, but with an >>> alternative declaration for the type characteristics. >>> >>> Maybe it would be possible to use like in contracts in place of the >>> example-base approach. >>> >>> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 14:21 -0700, Andy Balholm wrote: >>> > I think there are serious issues with your syntax for functions and >>> > “templates.” For example, there doesn’t seem to be a way to specify >>> > that two parameters to a function need to be the same type, or that >>> > the return type will be the same as the parameter. The syntax from >>> > the official proposal is superior in that regard. >>> > >>> > But replacing contracts with “like” definitely sounds like something >>> > worth investigating. >>> > >>> > Andy >>> > >> >> -- >> 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. > -- > 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. -- 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.
