Yes, an alternative syntax I can come up with (underscore as a placeholder):
func Foo(type T1 _, T2 Bar)
On Thursday, 18 June 2020 03:28:39 UTC+1, Andrey Tcherepanov wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be nice to have just
>
> func Foo(type T1, type T2 Bar)
>
> (type as keyword splitting it into 2 type decla
Wouldn't it be nice to have just
func Foo(type T1, type T2 Bar)
(type as keyword splitting it into 2 type declarations)
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 5:50:47 AM UTC-6, Brian Candler wrote:
>
> Consider a generic where you want T1 unconstrained but T2 constrained. If
> you write
>
> func Foo(
Sorry, I understand what you're saying now. I quite like "type T" meaning
"any type", but you have a fair point.
--
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
Hi Brian,
Thanks for your reply but I don’t think you get my point, what I mean is
constraint should be always explicitly specified, so we should not support
“optional” or “omitted” constraints.
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 12:51, Brian Candler wrote:
> Consider a generic where you want T1 unconstrai
Consider a generic where you want T1 unconstrained but T2 constrained. If
you write
func Foo(type T1, T2 Bar)
then Bar constrains both. Hence the need for
func Foo(type T1 interface{}, T2 Bar)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
