On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 10:16:50 PM UTC+3, Jan Mercl wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:58 PM Viktor Kojouharov <vkojo...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> > Not really, as this is all hypothetical, it might be implemented in a
> way so that any type that wants to satisfy an interface with default
> methods has to at least implement all non-default ones. That is to say,
> with the above example interface, any and all types will be able to match,
> since the interface doesn't define any other methods (in a sense, it turns
> into interface{}). However, if a type wishes to define any method that has
> a default implementation, it can do so, and that implementation will be
> used.
>
> This can serve as a good answer to the question in the thread title. I
> mean, hypothetically allowing interface types as method receivers makes
> things less intuitive to use, more complex to specify, implement and
> understand to source code reader.
>
I disagree. I see no evidence nor reason why such a feature would make
things less intuitive or more complex. On the contrary, handling a feature
in this way seems quite intuitive.
>
> --
>
> -j
>
--
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.
