I'd assume that would fail to compile as you're returning a []T not a []int
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 2:07 PM roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 01:28, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote:
>>
>> After many discussions and reading many comments, we plan to move
>> forward with some changes and clarifications to the generics design
>> draft.
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> We’re going to settle on square brackets for the generics syntax.
>> We’re going to drop the “type” keyword before type parameters, as
>> using square brackets is sufficient to distinguish the type parameter
>> list from the ordinary parameter list. To avoid the ambiguity with
>> array declarations, we will require that all type parameters provide a
>> constraint. This has the advantage of giving type parameter lists the
>> exact same syntax as ordinary parameter lists (other than using square
>> brackets). To simplify the common case of a type parameter that has
>> no constraints, we will introduce a new predeclared identifier “any”
>> as an alias for “interface{}”.
>>
>> The result is declarations that look like this:
>>
>> type Vector[T any] []T
>> func Print[T any](s []T) { … }
>> func Index[T comparable](s []T, e T) { … }
>>
>> We feel that the cost of the new predeclared identifier “any” is
>> outweighed by the simplification achieved by making all parameter
>> lists syntactically the same: as each regular parameter always has a
>> type, each type parameter always has a constraint (its meta-type).
>>
>> Changing “[type T]” to “[T any]” seems about equally readable and
>> saves one character. We’ll be able to streamline a lot of existing
>> code in the standard library and elsewhere by replacing “interface{}”
>> with “any”.
>>
>> 2.
>>
>> We’re going to simplify the rule for type list satisfaction. The type
>> argument will satisfy the constraint if the type argument is identical
>> to any type in the type list, or if the underlying type of the type
>> argument is identical to any type in the type list. What we are
>> removing here is any use of the underlying types of the types in the
>> type list. This tweaked rule means that the type list can decide
>> whether to accept an exact defined type, other than a predeclared
>> type, or whether to accept any type with a matching underlying type.
>>
>> This is a subtle change that we don’t expect to affect any existing
>> experimental code.
>>
>> We think that this definition might work if we permit interface types
>> with type lists to be used outside of type constraints. Such
>> interfaces would effectively act like sum types. That is not part of
>> this design draft, but it’s an obvious thing to consider for the
>> future.
>>
>> Note that a type list can mention type parameters (that is, other type
>> parameters in the same type parameter list). These will be checked by
>> first replacing the type parameter(s) with the corresponding type
>> argument(s), and then using the rule described above.
>>
>> 3.
>>
>> We’re going to clarify that when considering the operations permitted
>> for a value whose type is a type parameter, we will ignore the methods
>> of any types in the type list. The general rule is that the generic
>> function can use any operation permitted by every type in the type
>> list. However, this will only apply to operators and predeclared
>> functions (such as "len" and "cap"). It won’t apply to methods, for
>> the case where the type list includes a list of types that all define
>> some method. Any methods must be listed separately in the interface
>> type, not inherited from the type list.
>>
>> This rule seems generally clear, and avoids some complex reasoning
>> involving type lists that include structs with embedded type
>> parameters.
>>
>> 4.
>>
>> We’re going to permit type switches on type parameters that have type
>> lists, without the “.(type)” syntax. The “(.type)” syntax exists to
>> clarify code like “switch v := x.(type)”. A type switch on a type
>> parameter won’t be able to use the “:=” syntax anyhow, so there is no
>> reason to require “.(type)”. In a type switch on a type parameter
>> with a type list, every case listed must be a type that appears in the
>> type list (“default” is also permitted, of course). A case will be
>> chosen if it is the type matched by the type argument, although as
>> discussed above it may not be the exact type argument: it may be the
>> underlying type of the type argument.
>
>
> Here's one interesting implication of this: it allows us to do type
> conversions that were not previously possible.
>
> For example, if we have "type I int", we can use a type switch to convert
> some type []I to type []int:
> https://go2goplay.golang.org/p/-860Zlz7-cn
>
> func F[type T intlike](ts []T) []int {
> switch T {
> case int:
> return ts
> }
> return nil
> }
>
> It seems to me that this kind of thing will allow us to perform a similar
> conversion (convert some part of the type to its underlying type) on any type.
>
> In the early days of Go, the spec allowed this kind of conversion as a normal
> type conversion. I wonder if it might be reasonable to revert to those more
> relaxed semantics. I think they're potentially useful, for example, when
> dealing with named types obtained from modules with two different major
> versions without incurring copies.
>
> Although in the above-linked issue Robert talks about runtime costs such as
> "possibly re-mapping method tables", I don't see that this would necessarily
> be the case. Thoughts?
>
> --
> 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/CAJhgacjL7p7qck%3DSO0Nz9f%2BKZw6MNcgkD5REXwSNK7_fCTXYQg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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/CANG3jXJvUGO5OcQrxmwh4C5%2BQGF8xGgkNXL-ffkg_02BS5rxZQ%40mail.gmail.com.
