> Robert Engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote about what >> Christian Surlykke <christ...@surlykke.dk> wrote:
> The static switch is a big problem. For any complex method you are going to > completely duplicate all of the code. Not good. Now the same straw man argument I read in "critique" about my [1] solution is raised against other person's proposal. No! One need not to "completely duplicate" the code. Not even to mention "all", or most. And "static switch" is **not** "a big problem". It is a solution to the problem. For the practical generic code we need to deal with outstanding cases/types via the variant generation. Usually, a variant involving **different** code or even different underlying algorithm. That's what a `compile-time switch` over possible specialized code variants is for. Both in mine's and in Chris' proposal. > Far better to map operators to interfaces then you only need a single > method implementation. Oh, just a single? Rly? Just a single method implementation for each of possibly hundreds or thousands of future user types? Aren't you "going to completely duplicate all of the code"? Even for non-complex methods? (Its current state of affairs, btw). @Christian <christ...@surlykke.dk> Read other threads' replies made from reng...@ix.netcom.com, esp ones of "java's better" attitude, before you start to write a reply to an unfounded critique. Fighting someone else's straw man makes no sense at all. [1] https://github.com/ohir/gonerics -- Wojciech S. Czarnecki << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE -- 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.
