I was specifically talking about Ian's example, where no methods are
defined.
On Tuesday, 6 April 2021 at 15:57:18 UTC+2 Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 9:04 PM yiyus wrote:
>
>> > then I guess you mean that interface { MyInt } will accept any type
>> > argument whose
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 9:04 PM yiyus wrote:
> > then I guess you mean that interface { MyInt } will accept any type
> > argument whose underlying type is the same as the underlying type of
> > MyInt. But that seems strange. There is no connection between MyInt
> > and MyInt2, except that they
> then I guess you mean that interface { MyInt } will accept any type
> argument whose underlying type is the same as the underlying type of
> MyInt. But that seems strange. There is no connection between MyInt
> and MyInt2, except that they happen to be defined in terms of the same
> underlying
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 3:02 PM yiyus wrote:
>
> > More generally, if we omit approximation elements, it's a bit odd that
> > if I write "int" I mean "an infinite set of types including int". It
> > seems clearer to require people to explicitly indicate that they want
> > to match the infinite
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021, 21:58 yiyus, wrote:
> A type and its underlying type support exactly the same operations
>
FWIW I don't believe that's the case. A type may have methods (each with at
least one corresponding operation) that its underlying type does not.
--
You received this message
> More generally, if we omit approximation elements, it's a bit odd that
> if I write "int" I mean "an infinite set of types including int". It
> seems clearer to require people to explicitly indicate that they want
> to match the infinite set of types.
What I propose is not that "int means an
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 1:58 PM yiyus wrote:
>
> I may have missed something, but I have problems to understand what is the
> goal of the proposal. It says:
>
> > The purpose of introducing type lists in the generics proposal was to
> > specify the operations available to type parameters in
I may have missed something, but I have problems to understand what is the
goal of the proposal. It says:
> The purpose of introducing type lists in the generics proposal was to
specify the operations available to type parameters in parameterized
functions.
I do not see how approximation
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 at 00:48, Eltjon Metko wrote:
> I was fully expecting for floodgates of comments to open again but it
> seems we have reached a point of maturity in the generics proposal.
> The new proposal really makes the intent much clearer both on the exact vs
> underlying type match
I was fully expecting for floodgates of comments to open again but it seems
we have reached a point of maturity in the generics proposal.
The new proposal really makes the intent much clearer both on the exact vs
underlying type match front and the syntax gives us a more familiar union
10 matches
Mail list logo
