> That’s a weird definition of type safe… with very very low standards. Thanks. > What OP probably means is [...] I already completely addressed this point

> That’s a weird definition of type safe… with very very low standards. Thanks. > What OP probably means is [...] I already completely addressed this point in my previous comment. Your comment doesn't appear to add anything new to this discussion. What OP actually sounded like they were saying is that you would have to do an ad-hoc union type with a struct containing the fields of the various things you would want to send, and having to hope you don't access the wrong fields at the wrong time. That would be type unsafe. I've written a lot of Rust professionally over the years, among other languages. I'm very familiar with what strong type systems look like. Being told my standards are "very very low"... such a great way to keep this conversation constructive. Type safety is a spectrum, and what I described in my comment above is far from "very very low standards" when talking about practical applications. It's not describing the gold standard -- I'll be the first to say that I wish Go had proper sum types -- but some people apparently forget what a lot of other popular languages deal with in terms of type safety, leading to hyperbolic statements about other people's standards.