Beoran <beo...@gmail.com>:
> 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.
This is, of course, similar to my "implements" proposal in that it uses
the semantic richness of primitive types to carve up contract space, rather
than defining an extension language to describe contracts from the ground up.
I still like "implements" better because it's simpler - just one new keyword.
Also I think the granularity of "like this operator" is more appropriate than
the granularity of "like this type". That said, I like Burak's design better
than anything I've seen yet *except* "implements".
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
--
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.
