On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:25 PM John Wilkinson <john.wilkin...@rocky.edu> wrote: > > > The only goal here seems to be to use types to better communicate what a > > function can accept > > Isn't that an improvement? That feels aligned with Go's objectives.
Among Go's objectives is that the language be simple and easy to learn and understand. The current type system is very simple. A change like this makes it more complicated, leading to questions like the ones I posed earlier: "it seems logical that this should work, so why doesn't it work?" But if we do make it work, the type system and the language become more complicated. > The idea that is a step towards writing types rather than code is impossible > to quantify; the same could be said of type aliases or generics. I don't agree. Both type aliases and generics were driven by a lack of power in the language: "there is code that we can't write today, and adding these features will make it possible to write that code". I don't see a similar argument for your proposal. Every language change is a cost/benefit decision. All language proposals have benefits; if they didn't have benefits, nobody would propose them. All language proposals have costs. Are the costs worth the benefits? Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcXydaHoMVM0n6LMcCgGXoPVqaDf-w9SQ%3DuBR56wjVY2kw%40mail.gmail.com.
