I think that might work, yes. At least I don't see a major issue with it
right now.
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 7:25 PM roger peppe wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 05:58, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think the reason this has not
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 05:58, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the reason this has not happened is that it makes code using such
> a type invalid, depending on the type-argument - in ways not captured by
> the constraint. For example:
>
> type
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
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,
On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 12:59:25 AM UTC-5 Axel Wagner wrote:
3. Someone comes up with a clever new compromise.
Here is a strawman proposal: Allow `Nullable`:
type Nullable[T any] struct {
T
valid bool
}
By generating a compile error when a developer attempts to use a type as a
Hi,
I think the reason this has not happened is that it makes code using such a
type invalid, depending on the type-argument - in ways not captured by the
constraint. For example:
type X[T any] struct {
T
*bufio.Reader
}
func main() {
var x X[int]
x.Read // definitely refers to
Hi,
I am wondering if Type Parameter embedding is something that is likely to
happen ? e.g.:
type Nullable[T any] struct {
T
valid bool
}
Regards.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
