it does mean that you can now have a total of four sets of parens in a function def:
func (type T) (s Foo*) Bar(arg1 Baz, arg2 Baz2) (bool, Quux)
Conversation
not ... terrible, and I still think it's an overall good choice, but still kinda weird
2
It makes it clearer that generics are functions applied to types, I like it a lot. Gives Go a leg up on the path to dependent types!
2
3
Step 1: get tagged unions.
1
2
It should already have them, tagged unions are compatible with the "Go philosophy" in every way I can think of... every language should have them though.
1
AFAIK the Powers That Be say that tagged unions don't bring much to interface types so they don't want them.
1
1
My first instinct is to say "but those aren't the same thing!" but if it's a feature-for-feature trade I'd happily give up interfaces for tagged unions. Can always use records with functions in them instead, they're not even that bad to use.
2
I thought the issue was more that they started out with the assumption that everything needed a default value. Anyway, that means it's hard to have a default for tagged unions (which should have given them a hint that defaults for everything is kinda ick, but egh).
2
1
Hard agree, the mandatory defaults are dumb.
1
2
Lol @ the fact that this was the tweet to become mutuals.
GIF
1
1
our powers combine
in the form of quality twoots
✨🎊💖 DEFAULT BAD 💖🎊💫