3 ms·
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding though. As I read it, while you can't do: func Bar(type B setter, S stringer)(box B, item S) {...} directly, you accomplish
by msbarnett 7y ago
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding though.
As I read it, while you can't do:
func Bar(type B setter, S stringer)(box B, item S) {...}
directly, you accomplish the same thing via
contract SetterStringer(B, S) {
setter(B)
stringer(S)
}
func Bar(type B, S SetterStringer)(box B, item S) {...}
so in practice it's basically the same thing, you just have to explicitly specify the contract the function conforms to via a composition of the two other contracts.
- samprotas 7y agoThis is a good point. So maybe my concern is more a verboseness issue rather than expressiveness. That said, it would be nice if there was some commentary on whether an implementation like Swift’s was considered and ruled out for some reason. As it reads now, I stand by my original comment that this restriction seems a bit arbitrary.
- msbarnett 7y agoI’d be very interested in that as well, and I agree it seems verbose simply for the sake of maintaining a one-one func-contract correspondence. Maybe there’s some trade-off I’m not seeing here, though.