Quoting Andy Balholm (2018-10-20 17:34:15) > It’s just one of probably dozens of types of operations that people > will want generic types to be able to support, besides method calls and > operators. Adding support for them wouldn’t be very hard either, but by > the time you got done, the result might be about as complicated as > contracts.
I am not convinced. My proposal goes through *every* example in the examples section at the end of the draft. Throughout all of the discussions on this list I have seen very few, if any, compelling uses that contracts can handle but operator overloading + interfaces can't (I can't think of one). It's also not just a question of complexity per se -- it's also that contracts have too much overlap with interfaces (which are not going away). I also don't think they provide a very good way of expressing intent. Even so, as I mentioned above, the interfaces + operator overloading route covers basically everything I've seen. And it's still simpler. -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.
