![](/style/images/good.png)
![](/style/images/bad.png)
proposal: spec: sum types based on general interfaces · Issue #57644 · golang/go...
source link: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/57644
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Contributor
ianlancetaylor commented Jan 5, 2023
This is a speculative issue based on the way that type parameter constraints are implemented. This is a discussion of a possible future language change, not one that will be adopted in the near future. This is a version of #41716 updated for the final implementation of generics in Go. We currently permit type parameter constraints to embed a union of types (see https://go.dev/ref/spec#Interface_types). We propose that we permit an ordinary interface type to embed a union of terms, where each term is itself a type. (This proposal does not permit the underlying type syntax That's really the entire proposal. Embedding a union in an interface affects the interface's type set. As always, a variable of interface type may store a value of any type that is in its type set, or, equivalently, a value of any type in its type set implements the interface type. Inversely, a variable of interface type may not store a value of any type that is not in its type set. Embedding a union means that the interface is something akin to a sum type that permits values of any type listed in the union. For example:
The types In all other ways an interface type with an embedded union would act exactly like an interface type. There would be no support for using operators with values of the interface type, even though that is permitted for type parameters when using such a type as a type parameter constraint. This is because in a generic function we know that two values of some type parameter are the same type, and may therefore be used with a binary operator such as In particular, the zero value of an interface type with an embedded union would be As an implementation note, we could in some cases use a different implementation for interfaces with an embedded union type. We could use a small code, typically a single byte, to indicate the type stored in the interface, with a zero indicating As I said above, this is a speculative issue, opened here because it is an obvious extension of the generics implementation. In discussion here, please focus on the benefits and costs of this specific proposal. Discussion of sum types in general, or different proposals for sum types, should remain on #19412 or newer variants such as #54685. Thanks. |
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK