On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:43 PM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > I don't think it is useful to quibble over the definition of "ignore". When I > said it is demonstrably false that arguments have been ignored, I was > assuming what I perceive to be the common definition: "refuse to take notice > of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally. fail to consider (something > significant)". Under this definition, that statement implies that arguments > have not been given consideration, which would be false. They have been > considered, they just where not actually followed. > > If the statement was made using a different definition, that is fine - at > least we've gotten that clarification, then. I just did not want there to be > any misunderstandings about what actually happened. I didn't want to start a > debate about the English language.
I believe we are using the very same definition. What I'm failing at is to explain the context. I may invest in bitcoins, let's say. One thing/opinion is that it may bring profit. The other is that I may lose my money. When I decide to buy bitcoins as well if I decide to do the opposite, I'm from that moment ignoring one of those opinions because the decision has been made. I cannot keep considering both the conflicting opinions. I _must_ from now on ignore one of them. Failing to do that means no decision can be made. Only the future can tell if that was a wise choice or not. And that's exactly the same about Go and generics. -- 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/CAA40n-VBO%2BZc7HMs13KmN%2BcoUipaz%3DKSWv81VUbOKN7u8YOBeA%40mail.gmail.com.
