On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:45 PM Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On January 19, 2021 9:13:55 PM UTC, Levieux Michel
> wrote:
> >I think the question was: "given your proposal here, I can write func
> >(string | []byte in1, string | []byte in2) which enforces that in1 and
> >in2
> >must be either of
On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 22:44 +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On January
19, 2021 9:13:55 PM UTC, Levieux Michel <
> mlevieu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think the question was: "given your proposal here, I can write
> >
func
> > (string | []byte in1, string | []byte in2) which enforces that
in1
> >
>>string
>>or []byte) ? "
>>
>
>You could always use a well placed &. That isn't the point.
Or perhaps group with {} like Darts optional parameters. Again though, not the
point.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To
On January 19, 2021 9:13:55 PM UTC, Levieux Michel wrote:
>I think the question was: "given your proposal here, I can write func
>(string | []byte in1, string | []byte in2) which enforces that in1 and
>in2
>must be either of type string or type []byte, but how do I tell the
>compiler that in1 and
On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 21:09 +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On January 19, 2021 8:22:01 PM UTC, 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts <
> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 20:01 +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > > I was inquiring about the possibility of no identifiers or
> >
I think the question was: "given your proposal here, I can write func
(string | []byte in1, string | []byte in2) which enforces that in1 and in2
must be either of type string or type []byte, but how do I tell the
compiler that in1 and in2 must be of the *same type* (whether it is string
or []byte)
On January 19, 2021 8:22:01 PM UTC, 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts
wrote:
>On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 20:01 +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> I was inquiring about the possibility of no identifiers or
>> abstraction but simply like Gos non generic functions (possibly
>> reversed if needed). Using type
On Tue, 2021-01-19 at 20:01 +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> I was inquiring about the possibility of no identifiers or
> abstraction but simply like Gos non generic functions (possibly
> reversed if needed). Using type OR type.
>
> func (String | []byte firstInput, myType | publicKey
>
How would you express the equivalent of
func Min[T constraints.Ordered](a []T) T {
min := a[0]
for _, v := range a[1:] {
if v < min {
min = v
}
}
return min
}
using this syntax? More generally, it is probably useful to go through the
examples from the
>> Seems to me that most generics implementations use a capital letter
>> abstracted type syntax that I hate.
>>
>
>This is just a convention and not part of the syntax, which means it's
>irrelevant to the discussion about the proposal. You can easily use
>lowercase letters/identifiers:
10 matches
Mail list logo
