On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:47 AM Randall O'Reilly <rcoreil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It’s great to see that so many people share my considerable enthusiasm for > this proposal! Seriously, nobody is willing to take a look and provide any > feedback? > > - Randy > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 2:53 AM, Randall O'Reilly <rcoreil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I wrote up a coherent proposal based on the core of the idea below, and > > added it to the feedback wiki: > > > > https://gist.github.com/rcoreilly/bfbee2add03c76ada82810423d81e53d > > > > Overall I think it seems quite promising as perhaps the most “Go” version > > of generics possible, which solves the major use-cases, while retaining > > essentially the same existing syntax and just adding a few additional > > keywords. I can’t see any major limitations other than those intrinsic to > > the idea itself (e.g., you can’t define a Min function that works across > > any type whatsoever), and I don’t think it introduces any violations of > > existing static type safety. Curious to hear what others think! Cheers,
I don't understand how to use this proposal to write a type-safe concurrent hash map. I think that is one of the key features that a generics implementation needs to support. As a less important issue, relying on a general construct like "number" is problematic in Go. There are many different ways to slice up Go's types. "number" is just one of them. There is also integer, signed integer, unsigned integer, comparable, ordered, float, complex. One can even think of addable (includes string) and indexable and sliceable. 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcWqKR%3DHF-O-boztmiuvQ1tOna96YOydnJ_Sao%2BRVrxjyQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
