I assume the scope of the discussion about introducing generics is not how Go-generics might hypothetically be transformed to idiomatic Go. I find no reference to "unsafe" in neither of these (already mentioned here):
- "Proposal: Go should have generics" by Ian Lance Taylor https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/15292-generics.md - "proposal: generic programming facilities" by Andrew Gerrand https://github.com/golang/go/issues/15292 Neither do I find any mention of "reflect", which I assume might be relevant. >From this I infer that adding generics to Go is a rather large affair. It also looks like that in the pages above. More interesting, I don't see formal modeling verification mentioned in any of the generics-documents above, neither in this recent thread: - "formal verification in Go? someday perhaps?" at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/MVITBF3TcOE I know that Rob Pike was involved with formal verification since long ("Bell Labs and CSP Threads", by Russ Cox, see https://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/) and that this background was colouring much of how Go ended up. Has generics been discussed along this line: that Go-generics might be more/less suitable for formal verification? Øyvind fredag 1. juli 2016 06.30.35 UTC+2 skrev Andrew Mezoni følgende: > > >> it can be done with using unsafe > > This is the only available method (and very suitable). > The same method used throughout in the Go language the runtime. > It's very easy to do that. > > Problem only to find appropriate syntax for the current Go grammar for to > be look as idiomatic Go. > I still not found that but I am still looking (this even is a bigger > problem than "how to implement them?"). > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
