Re: [go-nuts] Re: Interface value terminology

2017-11-27 Thread 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Stefan Nilsson < trolleriprofess...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure, using a type descriptor to implement the dynamic type is an > implementation detail. but the fact that an interface value consists of a > concrete value and a dynamic type is part of the spec. I find it

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Interface value terminology

2017-11-27 Thread Jan Mercl
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:18 PM Stefan Nilsson wrote: > I fully understand that this can be implemented in many different ways. That's not my question. Splitting words about "consists of" and "has a" doesn't add much to the discussion. I think the distinction is

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Interface value terminology

2017-11-27 Thread Stefan Nilsson
I fully understand that this can be implemented in many different ways. That's not my question. Splitting words about "consists of" and "has a" doesn't add much to the discussion. On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 3:12:31 PM UTC+1, Jan Mercl wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:02 PM Stefan

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Interface value terminology

2017-11-27 Thread Jan Mercl
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:02 PM Stefan Nilsson wrote: > Sure, using a type descriptor to implement the dynamic type is an implementation detail. but the fact that an interface value consists of a concrete value and a dynamic type is part of the spec. The value of

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Interface value terminology

2017-11-27 Thread Stefan Nilsson
Sure, using a type descriptor to implement the dynamic type is an implementation detail. but the fact that an interface value consists of a concrete value and a dynamic type is part of the spec. I find it unfortunate that there is no common agreement on the terminology. That's why I'm asking.

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Interface value terminology

2017-11-27 Thread 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Stefan Nilsson < trolleriprofess...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see the dynamic type, which is part of every interface variable, as more > than an implementation detail. > Yes. But not the type descriptor. Which is why I tried to emphasize the difference :) The

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Interface value terminology

2017-11-27 Thread Jan Mercl
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:43 PM Stefan Nilsson wrote: Having a dynamic type does not imply having a/any type descriptor included in the value of an interface variable. That's why it's an implementation detail. -- -j -- You received this message because you

[go-nuts] Re: Interface value terminology

2017-11-27 Thread Stefan Nilsson
I see the dynamic type, which is part of every interface variable, as more than an implementation detail. The language spec, which is typically very careful to avoid talking about implementation issues, explicitly states that an interface variable has a dynamic type: Variables of interface