Yes, thank you. In intellectual shame I must say that I somehow understood
that the generics needed to be "leaf" functions. Thank you for
demonstrating my oversight. Happier now.
Michael
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:47 PM Bakul Shah <ba...@iitbombay.org> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Michael Jones <michael.jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The all-or-none aspect would be sidestepped if it were allowed to define
> "partial generics":
> >
> > func A (T1, T2) (...){....}
> >
> > func B(T)(...){ A(T,int)(...){...} }
> >
> > Allowing B to exist just means running the whole generic thing
> iteratively until no resolution is changed. If the fixed point still has
> generic types then the compilation is a failure, otherwise, a success.
>
> Do you mean something like this?
> https://go2goplay.golang.org/p/4I4y-dLC-Yp
>
> >
> > Seems useful to me. A generic balanced tree infrastructure could be
> "meta-instantiated" as a LLRB instance that still allows generic leaf types.
>
>
--
*Michael T. jonesmichael.jo...@gmail.com <michael.jo...@gmail.com>*
--
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/CALoEmQxTgQdhS2x4MU%3D_FcwBAJ09D68XnNYOQxy5YV7%2B6QOi0w%40mail.gmail.com.
