Hey Roger,
Thanks for taking the time to engage with me on this. Really appreciate it!
On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 6:01:46 PM UTC-4, rog wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 22:49, Andrew Werner > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 5:42:12 PM UTC-4, rog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 22:49, Andrew Werner wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 5:42:12 PM UTC-4, rog wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out. I'm cool with this approach. I'll update my
library to utilize it (and consider also adopting the list.List, though I
do like my
The compiler could conceivably generate code that did that - and with
aggressive inlining you would end up the same as native type code.
I would argue that using raw slices in data structures leads to maintainability
issues anyway. The key is higher level constructs that give you similar if
On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 5:42:12 PM UTC-4, rog wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. I'm cool with this approach. I'll update my
>>> library to utilize it (and consider also adopting the list.List, though I
>>> do like my freedom to pool list nodes).
>>>
>>
> Personally, I'd start by
> Thanks for pointing this out. I'm cool with this approach. I'll update my
>> library to utilize it (and consider also adopting the list.List, though I
>> do like my freedom to pool list nodes).
>>
>
Personally, I'd start by re-using list.List, and only use pools if there
really is a significant
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Andrew Werner wrote:
> On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 10:17:01 AM UTC-4, rog wrote
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:59, Andrew Werner wrote:
>>
>>> Oh! It’s saying that *B implements the constraint, nifty. Is this idea
>>> in the current proposal?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. See
>>
On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 10:17:01 AM UTC-4, rog wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:59, Andrew Werner > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:45 AM roger peppe > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:26, Andrew Werner >> > wrote:
>>>
Hey Rog,
I think I
On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 10:17:01 AM UTC-4, rog wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:59, Andrew Werner > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:45 AM roger peppe > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:26, Andrew Werner >> > wrote:
>>>
Hey Rog,
I think I
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:59, Andrew Werner wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:45 AM roger peppe wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:26, Andrew Werner wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Rog,
>>>
>>> I think I sent you a private reply earlier. My bad. I now see what
>>> you're proposing in the first
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:45 AM roger peppe wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:26, Andrew Werner wrote:
>
>> Hey Rog,
>>
>> I think I sent you a private reply earlier. My bad. I now see what you're
>> proposing in the first proposal think it makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> The thing that I
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 14:26, Andrew Werner wrote:
> Hey Rog,
>
> I think I sent you a private reply earlier. My bad. I now see what you're
> proposing in the first proposal think it makes a lot of sense.
>
> The thing that I think I had missed was this piece of magic:
> // New returns a new
Hey Rog,
I think I sent you a private reply earlier. My bad. I now see what you're
proposing in the first proposal think it makes a lot of sense.
The thing that I think I had missed was this piece of magic:
// New returns a new Dequeue instance using B as the block storage backing.
func
Thanks for the interesting use case, Andrew!
I've experimented with a slightly different approach:
https://go2goplay.golang.org/p/AkqzbWmpj6t
It expects the caller to implement a method on the array to get a reference
to the
underlying storage, but that's fairly trivial to implement.
I've
Thanks for the reply! If I read it correctly, it is already possible to
specify a type constraint as an Array of a given size and so the first part
of the "What I might have expected" actually does work. I noticed that it
works in that it works as a type constraint but I found that types
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:22 AM Andrew Werner wrote:
> [The body of this email is a duplication of the README in
> https://github.com/ajwerner/go2dequeue/
> which also contains the sample implementation]
>
> Exercise building a dequeue with the go2 Type Parameter Draft
>
> This project is an
[The body of this email is a duplication of the README in
https://github.com/ajwerner/go2dequeue/
which also contains the sample implementation]
Exercise building a dequeue with the go2 Type Parameter Draft
This project is an exploration with the go2go / Type Parameters - Design
Draft
16 matches
Mail list logo