> ...but is not somehow invulnerable to forces of time and change. A new hope :D
More seriously, friendly speaking, it might seem a bit ridiculous that the complete (or almost, i m not specialist in that area) go internals compiler was changed, but that this remains because of a decision. I emphases the last term, decision, because its really not a technical issue here, it is just undesired side effect of a decision made from a point of view that is reasonable for a certain set of KPI. still, imho, go looks a bit rigid, for good reasons for sure. > ...conversation around generics If after X years, no consensus came out, maybe that idea is really not the good way to go ? but its not my topic and i wish not those complex conversations. On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 4:42:10 PM UTC+2, Michael Jones wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 7:14 AM, <mhh...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> A satisfying solution, imho, involves a more in depth change, >> which won t happen for reasons cited previously. >> > > Don't be too sure about that. No reason why "generate" could not be > changed/made redundant/more real/keyworded/etc. as part of the open and > much discussed conversation around generics. It is not likely to be changed > or go away...but is not somehow invulnerable to forces of time and change. > > -- > Michael T. Jones > michae...@gmail.com <javascript:> > -- 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.
