That's exactly what I'm saying, topic of dropping generics was never raised, so landing of some version of generics was implied by the process. In fact just a start of that process implied that dropping them entirely was never a question. There was no public discussion with that regard, no poll or anything.
четверг, 18 марта 2021 г. в 15:42:44 UTC+3, axel.wa...@googlemail.com: > ISTM that we already provided a bunch of evidence, which you are > rejecting. so "any evidence" clearly is not good enough and you should be a > bit more specific. > > Just to name a few specific examples of evidence provided: > • The FAQ, as well as any interview of the question, have stated clearly > that generics *may* be added, if a satisfying design is found. "May", not > "will". > • The proposal process > <https://github.com/golang/proposal#the-proposal-process> clearly > mentions the option to reject a proposal. > • This push for including generics started simultaneously, using the same > process <https://blog.golang.org/go2draft>, as both the "Error handling" > and the "Error values" designs. "Error values" was accepted and "Error > handling" was rejected as results of that process, so rejection was clearly > a possible outcome. > • Since then, there have been numerous blog posts, threads on this mailing > list, talks at conferences and appearances on podcasts by the Go team. All > of them mention the possibility that generics might not happen. All threads > (that I'm aware of) publicly discussing generics discuss the option not to > include them at all at least once. > > I really don't think it's too much to ask, what level of evidence you are > actually looking for. I also strongly feel that the case made by us is > stronger than the case made that there was no discussion about giving up on > generics. The latter seems - as far as I can tell - mainly rely on a) > interpreting statements by members of the Go team in ways incompatible with > the actual words being said and b) speculating about the management process > at Google - without any evidence to base this speculation on. > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:11 PM Space A. <reexi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable? Can you give an >> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a >> good answer to that question? Thanks. >> >> Ian, seriously. ANY evidence please, which you think "proves" that there >> was an open and public discussion on dropping generics from your daily >> agenda and focusing and spending time on more important things, such as >> first class Android support. >> >> ср, 17 мар. 2021 г. в 22:44, Ian Lance Taylor <ia...@golang.org>: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 4:28 AM Space A. <reexi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Can you provide any proof that there was an open public discussion? >>> >>> What kind of proof would you find to be acceptable? Can you give an >>> example of something that I could say that you would consider to be a >>> good answer to that question? Thanks. >>> >>> 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/1624a7bf-1418-4a24-9e11-5ba8c76852b3n%40googlegroups.com.
