On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:56 AM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
<golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> * My post does not allow to constrain on struct fields. This is a
> fundamental reduction in power over contracts (type-parameters can't be
> identifiers, but only type names so can't solve this like
> assignability/convertibility). I don't understand the cases this is needed.
> The design doc mentions this at one point. Personally, I find the example a
> bit contrived. The examples section contains more realistic use-cases and
> I'd find it helpful to get something more in line with that to understand
> the need. In either case, this won't ever be possible with a
> {pseudo-,}interface based constraint spec, so would require going through
> boiler-plate accessor methods (like it does currently with interfaces).
>
> I CC'ed Larry, as he mentioned that he needs field-accessors.I'll just note briefly that I tossed field accessors in the contracts design draft because it was easy, not because I thought it was an important feature. It would be interesting to see a real use case for it. At this point I would certainly be fine omitting any way to specify field accessors. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
