As I understand, the type would be implicitly applied to every func/struc in scope (which I assume would be the package) It work quite well for package like a Map so any data structure/algorithm. I suspect it would be…
I don't think it's because of the complexity. I'm quite sure it would not have been difficult to do. One of the reason is that you don't always want to check the error. The most common one is fmt.Println. I would not…
Well, It was more about strategy :) Sorry for the stupid analogy, but that's how I feel about the discussion: A: I need a Ferrari to go to work. How is it hard to understand! B: Well, you've only have 10 minute commute,…
Because you should stop asking for generics like in Java/C#/rust etc.. Such generic to make custom type safe container is like using a canon to kill a fly. You should ask for generic package/templated package. It solve…
As I understand, the type would be implicitly applied to every func/struc in scope (which I assume would be the package) It work quite well for package like a Map so any data structure/algorithm. I suspect it would be…
I don't think it's because of the complexity. I'm quite sure it would not have been difficult to do. One of the reason is that you don't always want to check the error. The most common one is fmt.Println. I would not…
Well, It was more about strategy :) Sorry for the stupid analogy, but that's how I feel about the discussion: A: I need a Ferrari to go to work. How is it hard to understand! B: Well, you've only have 10 minute commute,…
Because you should stop asking for generics like in Java/C#/rust etc.. Such generic to make custom type safe container is like using a canon to kill a fly. You should ask for generic package/templated package. It solve…