Re: [go-nuts] Interface value terminology

Just my personal usage/2¢: 1. An interface-value/The value of an interface 2. The dynamic value 3. The dynamic type x. Concrete type, to me, is a static type that is not an interface type. y. Concrete value, to me, might sometimes be used interchangeably with dynamic value. Or it might refer to

Re: [go-nuts] Interface value terminology

I’ve adopted terminology from other OO languages and people seem to have understood me. > 1. the value of an interface (both parts), This is the “interface value”. > 2. the concrete value, The “boxed value”. > 3. the type descriptor. No need to talk about it specifically. Worst case, it is

Re: [go-nuts] Interface value terminology

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:13 AM Stefan Nilsson wrote: > My question. How do you refer to the following three concepts (and why): > > 1. the value of an interface (both parts), The value of/in the interface variable. Why: No alternative comes to my mind. > 2. the

[go-nuts] Interface value terminology

An interface value in Go consists of two parts: a concrete value and a type descriptor. What is the preferred terminology when talking about this? The language specification says "dynamic value" and "dynamic type". However, this doesn't seem to have caught on. The term "concrete value" seems