2 ms·

Doesn't this also lead to a light implementation of monomorphization though?

• pcwalton 4y ago
  Structural vs. nominal typing has nothing to do with monomorphization. Depending on what you consider "structural typing" and how much you care about separate compilation, it may prevent you from doing monomorphization in some cases (e.g. OCaml's polymorphic variants require indirection at runtime). This doesn't apply to anything in Go or Rust, though.
  • foota 4y ago
    Yes... I guess this is the case. I was thinking that the GC shapes used in Go monomorphization were related to the structural typing, but thinking about it more, this isn't really the case.