On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 8:52 PM burak serdar <bser...@computer.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 8:22 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 2:28 AM Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote:
> >
> > > To simplify the common case of a type parameter that has
> > > no constraints, we will introduce a new predeclared identifier “any”
> > > as an alias for “interface{}”.
> >
> > Anyone can write the declaration
> >
> > type any = interface{}
> >
> > today and possibly some people already do that. But in my opinion that
> > would, so far, not pass a code review within the Go project per se.
> > (It would definitely not pass my code review.)
> >
> > I don't like it and It makes me sad it is being proposed to become
> > officially blessed.
>
> Is "any" truly an alias for interface{}, or is it only a constraint? I
> agree with Jan's point that replacing interface{} with "any" might
> unintentionally encourage its use.
Our intent here is that "any" will be available for all code. Yes, we
wouldn't do it if it weren't for its use as a type constraint. But if
we are going to do it for type constraints, there seems to be little
benefit to restricting it to only work as a type constraint.
This is not, of course, a new idea, even in the absence of generics.
For example, https://golang.org/issue/33232. (My comment there was
that we would use interface{} less if we had generics, but of course
when we require type constraints then we actually wind up using it
somewhat more.)
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/CAOyqgcWubUzPNmLs_aPF%2BjjyOfr6Pz_czWF5EqLM2vLWdTsZ4Q%40mail.gmail.com.
