It seems reasonable but first I'd like to understand why the recursive
method is used. I can't deduce why, but the CL that adds it, by gri, does
Karatsuba multiplication, which implies something deep is going on. I'll
add him to the conversation.
-rob
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 5:46 PM John
I enjoy bignum implementations, so I was looking through nat.go and saw
that `mulRange` is implemented in a surprising, recursive way,. In the
non-base case, `mulRange(a, b)` returns `mulrange(a, (a+b)/2) *
mulRange(1+(a+b)/2, b)` (lots of big.Int ceremony elided).
That's fine, but I didn't
I have tried many ways but now that the ecosystem is more mature maybe
someone knows of an example of how to make a Linux kernle module with Go,.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 7:58:55 AM UTC-5 Axel Wagner wrote:
I took this idea into account in my original message. It is bullet point 2.
The case against this is that it would likely make type-checking Go code
(co-)NP-complete.
If you watch my talk about methods in union elements
Hi,
With [VAR]
https://blog.merovius.de/posts/2018-06-03-why-doesnt-go-have-variance-in/
we review type diaspora into possibility space. Perhaps the assertion that
the abstract operand is incapable of supporting the implications of its
communication.
Initially, [GST]
Full explanation here:
https://blog.merovius.de/posts/2018-06-03-why-doesnt-go-have-variance-in/
On Saturday 6 January 2024 at 11:55:27 UTC John Pritchard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thinking about types and their conception, I could avoid the type
> assertion boilerplate and rationalize the type
Hi,
Thinking about types and their conception, I could avoid the type assertion
boilerplate and rationalize the type membership relationship if this code
compiled.
Best,
John
On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 3:21 AM Tamás Gulácsi wrote:
> Where does TestObject implement the Comparable interface, esp.
On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 9:12:13 AM UTC-5 Axel Wagner wrote:
If the signature of a function says you are allowed to call the function,
you should be allowed to call the function.
While I'd argue we would be best to stick to objective arguments and not
ones that affirm the consequent,
Where does TestObject implement the Comparable interface, esp. the Compare
method?
I don't see such in that rep.
The implemented TestObject.Compare method has different signature: it
requests a TestObject, not a Comparable interface, as your spec!
This is only the first error.
The second is
