Yes, you're right. I was somehow convinced that this is possible. Which is BTW not a good idea anyway (or at least I really don't like similar concept in Ruby -

Yes, you're right. I was somehow convinced that this is possible. Which is BTW not a good idea anyway (or at least I really don't like similar concept in Ruby - monkey patching). Do you know why Go authors decided to put method definitions outside types definitions? Technically I don't see anything to stop the syntax from supporting the otherwise.