On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 1:26 PM Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote: > > Burak Serdar <bser...@ieee.org>: > > So the question is: do we really need to declare exactly what the > > implementation of a generic needs in the contract, or is it sufficient > > to say "use this with values that are like type X"? > > I think the additional explicitness of "implements" is valuable. And > my syntax is lighter-weight than yours - which in a language like Go > that highly values parsimony has some significance.
I don't agree. > > That said, the shared idea of defining contracts via implied typeclasses > is, I think, more important than the ways in which our proposals differ. I agree. One other difference between the two is the ability of the "like" syntax to use a struct as well as an interface for templates, so you can require concrete implementations to have certain fields, instead of getter/setters. > -- > <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.
