So, for what it's worth: https://karthikkaranth.me/blog/functions-implementing-interfaces-in-go/
Otherwise, yeah. I'd love to be able to define interfaces with extra methods for implementors, but if you arrange your code around "traits", microstructs intended to present a possibly unergonomic API, intended to be implemented by the embedding struct. An example of this behavior working well is actually the io.Reader/io.Writer objects. It's not a terribly ergonomic API, but it can be incredibly flexible for implementations. On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-5 Simon Archer wrote: > I think that playground is broken. > > > > > > *./prog.go:22:9: undefined: translatableImpl./prog.go:27:11: undefined: > translatableImplGo build failed.* > > I fixed it like this: > https://go.dev/play/p/vZlwZIe9Ras > > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:27:46 PM UTC-4 Ron Green wrote: > >> in case anyone get's here and is confused... >> >> you can wrap the additional functionality in the struct and use the >> interfaces from before >> >> https://go.dev/play/p/e8aS0PZC6Zh >> >> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:55:30 PM UTC+2 oju...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> The code start to get smart when you combine interfaces. >>> >>> https://play.golang.org/p/axyl9FPS1e >>> >>> Whenever you can, forget the actual types. Code for interfaces instead. >>> >> -- 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/3f8605ac-a36d-4caa-aa4a-69cc5a81b8e0n%40googlegroups.com.
