[go-nuts] A proposal for generic in go
Here is my proposal for generic in go: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nO7D15c2B3eq2kF62C0yUs_UgpkyPL2zHhMAmlq1l98/edit?usp=sharing Many parts has not been finished, and just initial thoughts. In the proposal, I want to keep back compatibility. And I try to add the orthogonal feature only and keep the language still simple enough. Please add your comments on it. Hope it is useful and could inspire some new features in go 2.0 Thanks! -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[go-nuts] A proposal for generic in go
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 2:56:01 PM UTC-4, Axel Wagner wrote: The issue is, that a "KeyValuePair" (no matter if you implemented it via generics or like you mention via interfaces) i -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [go-nuts] A proposal for generic in go
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:04 PM, xingtao zhao wrote: > Here is my proposal for generic in go: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nO7D15c2B3eq2kF62C0yUs_UgpkyPL2zHhMAmlq1l98/edit?usp=sharing > > Many parts has not been finished, and just initial thoughts. In the > proposal, I want to keep back compatibility. And I try to add the orthogonal > feature only and keep the language still simple enough. > > Please add your comments on it. Hope it is useful and could inspire some new > features in go 2.0 Have you read the generics proposals linked from https://golang.org/issue/15292 ? 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [go-nuts] A proposal for generic in go
I read your proposals now. My proposal is very similar to your proposal of type parameter - in fact, they are almost identical. But in my proposal, I am not going that far as in your proposal. I did not include the operators, thus all generic functions can only access the unknown type through interface it satisfied. In my proposal, I am not allowing to access the field of an unknown type. Another valuable part my proposal added in the generic struct. I think this is different from the implementation in your proposal. Your proposal convert everything to interface method calls. While in my proposal, we have a special memory layout and padding algorithm, which make access the field of a struct with unknown type very cheap - almost identical to access an element in a slice/array. And in my proposal, we do not need to change the compiler too much, and do not need to slow down the complier speed a lot. Anyway, looking forward to any comments for the valuable part in my proposal. Thanks! On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 6:22:08 PM UTC-7, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:04 PM, xingtao zhao > wrote: > > Here is my proposal for generic in go: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nO7D15c2B3eq2kF62C0yUs_UgpkyPL2zHhMAmlq1l98/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > Many parts has not been finished, and just initial thoughts. In the > > proposal, I want to keep back compatibility. And I try to add the > orthogonal > > feature only and keep the language still simple enough. > > > > Please add your comments on it. Hope it is useful and could inspire some > new > > features in go 2.0 > > Have you read the generics proposals linked from > https://golang.org/issue/15292 ? > > 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [go-nuts] A proposal for generic in go
It's never going to happen! To quote the powers-to-be, "The language is done". Good luck! On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:04 AM, xingtao zhao wrote: > Here is my proposal for generic in go: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nO7D15c2B3eq2kF62C0yUs_UgpkyPL2zHhMAmlq1l98/edit?usp=sharing > > Many parts has not been finished, and just initial thoughts. In the > proposal, I want to keep back compatibility. And I try to add the orthogonal > feature only and keep the language still simple enough. > > Please add your comments on it. Hope it is useful and could inspire some new > features in go 2.0 > > Thanks! > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [go-nuts] A proposal for generic in go
Micky, I'm not sure where you're quoting from but they never said it's never gonna happen. >From the FAQ: "Generics may well be added at some point." and "This remains an open issue". https://golang.org/doc/faq#generics On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:54 PM Micky wrote: > It's never going to happen! To quote the powers-to-be, "The language is > done". > Good luck! > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:04 AM, xingtao zhao > wrote: > > Here is my proposal for generic in go: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nO7D15c2B3eq2kF62C0yUs_UgpkyPL2zHhMAmlq1l98/edit?usp=sharing > > > > Many parts has not been finished, and just initial thoughts. In the > > proposal, I want to keep back compatibility. And I try to add the > orthogonal > > feature only and keep the language still simple enough. > > > > Please add your comments on it. Hope it is useful and could inspire some > new > > features in go 2.0 > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- > > 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. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [go-nuts] A proposal for generic in go
I guess that's for diplomatic reasons. If you watch talks of core contributors then I believe you'll know what I mean :) On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Rodrigo Kochenburger wrote: > Micky, I'm not sure where you're quoting from but they never said it's never > gonna happen. > > From the FAQ: "Generics may well be added at some point." and "This remains > an open issue". > > https://golang.org/doc/faq#generics > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:54 PM Micky wrote: >> >> It's never going to happen! To quote the powers-to-be, "The language is >> done". >> Good luck! >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:04 AM, xingtao zhao >> wrote: >> > Here is my proposal for generic in go: >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nO7D15c2B3eq2kF62C0yUs_UgpkyPL2zHhMAmlq1l98/edit?usp=sharing >> > >> > Many parts has not been finished, and just initial thoughts. In the >> > proposal, I want to keep back compatibility. And I try to add the >> > orthogonal >> > feature only and keep the language still simple enough. >> > >> > Please add your comments on it. Hope it is useful and could inspire some >> > new >> > features in go 2.0 >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > -- >> > 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. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> 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. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [go-nuts] A proposal for generic in go
On 21 Jun 2016, at 19:55, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
wrote:
> The issue is, that a "KeyValuePair" (no matter if you implemented it
> via generics or like you mention via interfaces) is a fundamentally useless
> type and generics encourage people to add useless types. A "KeyValuePair V>" is a "struct { Key K, Value V }", plain and simple. It's not an interface
> and it's not a generic type, it's simply a struct.
>
> I agree, that generics are useful, but they seem to be mainly useful for
> people who write "frameworks", not so much for people who write
> "applications" and so far, go is pretty much a language for the latter.
> Whenever people try to justify generics, they do it from a "I want to write a
> framework" POV - and whenever I miss generics, I do because I'm currently
> writing a framework of some kind.
Not sure that's fair.
For background, I'd quite like generics and liked Ian's last proposal quite a
bit, but I also appreciate the cleanliness of go.
An recent example, in an real life application, where generics would have been
useful is as follows.
I had a cache type thing built around a red-black tree, or more precisely two
red black trees. The items were structs, and I needed one RB tree to be ordered
by time of insertion (then key, for uniqueness), and one by key. One red-black
tree dealt with expiries, and one with finding the item. In the absence of
generics, I needed to embed the struct in a 'ByTime' and 'ByItem' struct, each
of which implement a different 'LessThan' method. And everything that accessed
the trees had a bunch of ugly casting from an interface{} to the relevant type.
This does not make for readable code in any form. A RB tree that was
implemented as a generic (and perhaps took a 'LessThan' function as a lambda)
would have been far far cleaner in *my* code.
So saying it's all about being useful for people who write "frameworks" is
unfair. It would actually have made the application code (i.e. the library
user) far easier to read.
Of course it's possible to generate foolish uses (I would however note in
passing that even with KeyValuePair things might not be as simple as you think,
as it would (presumably) require comparability of K type items); however, it's
also possible to perform stupidity with existing go syntax. The question is
whether generics encourage it.
--
Alex Bligh
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
