>
> A contract can also be written in terms of a struct:
>
> contract linkedListNode {
> X struct {
> next *X
> }
> }
>
>
In this example taken from the linked document; what is X?
On Tuesday, 20 November 2018 05:38:31 UTC+3, Burak Serdar wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A while ago I sent an email
I guess X is the type that is represented by the struct, the meaning being
: "the type X is a struct that contains a field that is a pointer to a
value of the same type".
EDIT : I think the "next" word, which is here the name of the field, can
even be omitted. The relevant information here is to k
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:38 AM komuW wrote:
>>
>> A contract can also be written in terms of a struct:
>>
>> contract linkedListNode {
>> X struct {
>> next *X
>> }
>> }
>
>
> In this example taken from the linked document; what is X?
X is the name of the struct type. This struct satisfi
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:27 AM Michel Levieux wrote:
>
> I guess X is the type that is represented by the struct, the meaning being :
> "the type X is a struct that contains a field that is a pointer to a value of
> the same type".
>
> EDIT : I think the "next" word, which is here the name of t
Yes, but you can just specify the concract like :
contract doubleLinkedListNode {
X struct {
*X
*X
}
}
which defines a type X containing at least two pointers to values of type
X. You'd do the same currently for a function type --> func (int, int,
string), which takes two
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:36 AM Michel Levieux wrote:
>
> Yes, but you can just specify the concract like :
>
> contract doubleLinkedListNode {
> X struct {
> *X
> *X
> }
> }
>
> which defines a type X containing at least two pointers to values of type X.
> You'd do the sa
I'm not quite sure I understand your example .
According to me a contract on a structure type only defines what the
structure type should have (aka the minimum number of fields and their
respective types). When you define a function with a generic type, the only
thing the compiler should check is t
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 7:59 AM Michel Levieux wrote:
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand your example .
> According to me a contract on a structure type only defines what the
> structure type should have (aka the minimum number of fields and their
> respective types). When you define a function
Oh. Okay ! Yeah sorry I think my mind got stuck with the notion of
"abstract definition" of any type and did not see the concrete use they
could be subject to. I see what you mean :
https://play.golang.org/p/8P3IJElTS7d would effectively not work.
I think I didn't have the full picture of this.
