Just tried running it through the prototype type-checker and one
correction: You also have to convert `a` and `&a` to interface{}, so that
you are allowed to type-assert on them:
if e, ok := (interface{}(a)).(equaler(T)); ok { return e.Eq(b) }
if e, ok := (interface{}(&a)).(equaler(T)); ok { return e.Eq(b) }
Anyway, I hope by now the extreme hackishness of this "solution" is clear :)
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 12:55 AM Axel Wagner <axel.wagner...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> FWIW:
> interface{}(a) == interface{}(b)
> would work. It would panic if a and b have the same, non-comparable type.
> But if you know the type is equal and comparable, it's well-defined and
> does what you want. So you have to modify your code a bit:
>
> type equaler(type T) interface {
> Equal(T) bool
> }
>
> contract Comparable(T) {
> T comparable, Equal(T) bool
> }
>
> func Compare(type T Comparable)(a, b T) bool {
> if eq, ok := a.(equaler(T)); ok {
> return eq.Equal(b)
> }
> // Okay, this is weird, but: If you have `func (*T) Equal(T) bool`, a T
> (value) would
> // be accepted by the contract, as contracts don't distinguish between
> value and
> // pointer-receivers. But it would fail above type-assertion, as values
> don't include
> // pointer-methods in their method set.
> if eq, ok := (&a).(equaler(T)); ok {
> return eq.Equal(b)
> }
> return interface{}(a) == interface{}(b)
> }
>
> I can't think of anything in the current design draft preventing this from
> working (though I'm sure Ian can correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> It's a special case for equality-comparison though, it doesn't generalize
> to any other operators.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:40 PM Bruno Albuquerque <b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok, it makes sense. I do think that supporting something like this might
>> make the proposal even more appealing as it will bring custom types
>> somewhat closer to builtin types by allowing generic functions/methods that
>> can act on both at the same time.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:28 PM Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:12 PM Bruno Albuquerque <b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I was thinking about a way to "extend" usual operations (say,
>>> equality checks) to types that can not be compared the usual way (they are
>>> not "comparable" in the contract sense) and came up with something like
>>> this:
>>> >
>>> > // Just to use for type assertion later.
>>> > type Equaler interface {
>>> > Equal(Equaler) bool
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > contract Comparable(T) {
>>> > T comparable(T), Equal(T) bool
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > func Compare(type T Comparable)(a, b T) bool {
>>> > if eq, ok := a.(Equaler); ok {
>>> > return eq.Equal(b)
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > return a == b // Does this work at all?
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > Would this work? More specifically it looks to me that that if the
>>> specific type is not comparable (But has the Equal method), the compiler
>>> might see the "==" comparison in the function and give an error.
>>> >
>>> > One way around this would possibly be to use something similar to type
>>> assertion (in this case, a and b would have to be asserted to "comparable"
>>> which I guess is not possible as it is a contract). Or, the compiler could
>>> be smart enough to know that if we reached that check, then the type must
>>> be comparable (so it would also not give an error).
>>>
>>> In the current design draft, that would not work. The == operator is
>>> not supported by all possible types, so it is not permitted.
>>>
>>> We definitely don't want to rely on the compiler being smart enough.
>>> Any such approach would require writing down the exact inference rules
>>> that the compiler is permitted to use. Otherwise different compilers
>>> would behave differently.
>>>
>>> One possibility we've toyed with is
>>>
>>> switch T.(type) { // Note: switch on type parameter itself, not a
>>> value of that type.
>>> case Equaler:
>>> ...
>>> case comparable:
>>> // Permit using == operator here on values of type T in this
>>> case only.
>>> }
>>>
>>> We'll see whether some such facility seems useful. This is something
>>> we can add later, if the current design draft seems workable.
>>>
>>> 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.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEd86Tz4tvx3qPZ4fV86AyV-B8YOXEMZMR-L4f6fcTyAuX_eXQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEd86Tz4tvx3qPZ4fV86AyV-B8YOXEMZMR-L4f6fcTyAuX_eXQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfG2meXfm%2Bh1YF2iMTotYsaNq-yjVBB_v9pr9-v3BbDeVA%40mail.gmail.com.
