> First of all I feel it's more rhetoric, it's same as "Less is
exponentially more", and "[Go] ... Arguably more object oriented than say
Java or C++ ". I believe if you think logically "less" could not be "more",
right, and you wouldn't insist on that? Same goes to the statement that Go
is mor
> No support covariance or contravariance. Maybe I am on shaky ground in
terms of my understanding but doesn't this mean, for instance, that if I
have two interfaces, Foo and Bar, and a third composite interface, FooBar,
which consists of Foo and Bar, that a function with a generic parameter T
" argument to Op isn't necessary either AFAICS - you
> could just use a zero value instead (unless you actually want to be able to
> have a non-zero "zero" value, I guess).
>
> cheers,
> rog.
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 04:37, Beka Westberg wrote
Hello! I just ran into a problem that is solved really nicely with the new
generics proposal and I thought someone might find it interesting :D
I was trying to implement a library for doing ascii art programmatically.
The main struct is basically an image.Image except it works with bytes
instea
