3 ms·

Did you consider parameterized packages? The idea is you can declare a set of related objects/types/methods as well as have concrete type specific initializatio

by bakul 8y ago

Did you consider parameterized packages? The idea is you can declare a set of related objects/types/methods as well as have concrete type specific initialization. E.g. package stack[t] type Type []t func New() Type { return Type{} } ... Then it can be used so: import s “stack”[int] var s1 = s.New()

pjmlp 8y ago
Just as additional info to others, this is how Ada, Modula-2 and Modula-3 generics kind of work.
weberc2 8y ago
I’ve seen this in ocaml and always thought it strange. I think it’s useful, but binding it to a package seems odd since packages are units of code distribution or some such.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  It is not strange if you think of objects in OOP as modules/packages you can inherit from.
- bakul 8y ago
  Think of it as a package macro.
nickcw 8y ago
I think parameterized packages are a great idea. It would be a light-weight way of getting just a bit of generic code into go. I made gotemplate to explore that idea https://github.com/ncw/gotemplate https://github.com/ncw/gotemplate This requires a round of `go generate` for the actual code generation, but otherwise quite a similar experience. Having it built in would be great!
polymathist 8y ago
Parameterized packages are interesting but they come with their own problems. It can get tedious if I want to use, e.g., a stack with multiple different types. They also lose some of the flexibility that comes with scoping type parameters to any function/method/data structure.
- bakul 8y ago
  On the other hand writing such packages becomes easier as only two syntax extensions are needed (package header and import). You can easily abstract a package by replacing a concrete type with a package level parameter. More importantly, there is no other mechanism to tie together a bunch of objects, functions, methods etc. to the same parameter types.

by bakul 8y ago

pjmlp 8y ago

Just as additional info to others, this is how Ada, Modula-2 and Modula-3 generics kind of work.

weberc2 8y ago

I’ve seen this in ocaml and always thought it strange. I think it’s useful, but binding it to a package seems odd since packages are units of code distribution or some such.

pjmlp 8y ago
It is not strange if you think of objects in OOP as modules/packages you can inherit from.
bakul 8y ago
Think of it as a package macro.

nickcw 8y ago

I think parameterized packages are a great idea. It would be a light-weight way of getting just a bit of generic code into go. I made gotemplate to explore that idea https://github.com/ncw/gotemplate https://github.com/ncw/gotemplate This requires a round of `go generate` for the actual code generation, but otherwise quite a similar experience. Having it built in would be great!

polymathist 8y ago

Parameterized packages are interesting but they come with their own problems. It can get tedious if I want to use, e.g., a stack with multiple different types. They also lose some of the flexibility that comes with scoping type parameters to any function/method/data structure.

bakul 8y ago
On the other hand writing such packages becomes easier as only two syntax extensions are needed (package header and import). You can easily abstract a package by replacing a concrete type with a package level parameter. More importantly, there is no other mechanism to tie together a bunch of objects, functions, methods etc. to the same parameter types.