Quoting Ian Denhardt (2018-10-19 16:29:07) > > Quoting Burak Serdar (2018-10-19 15:13:20) > > Without operator overloading: > >
Realized I missed this right after hitting send. Yes, without operator overloading you're restricted to built-in types that already support the operator. The original motivation for Eric's proposal was as a way to do operator overloading; I don't see that it achieves anything without that. -- 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.
