Open vtereshkov opened 2 months ago
Why would it needs methods on non pointer receivers?
@skejeton For consistency. For example, you can treat methods on non-pointer receivers as const
methods in C++, i.e., the only methods applicable to a const
object. When I put a non-pointer value into an interface, this value may be a const
. What would a method acting on a pointer receiver mean here? That the constant should be addressable? That the method could modify it?
@vtereshkov But the value type interface isn't immutable/const. On a normal value type you can call methods with pointer receivers, which implicitly takes reference of itself.
@skejeton On a value-typed var
you can, on a value-typed const
you cannot.
@vtereshkov Makes sense, but this is about const/var, not imterfaces. Isn't it?
@skejeton Interface methods should act exactly as the corresponding concrete type methods. They shouldn't expect a pointer to a const, for example.
@vtereshkov i don't get it, why are we talking about consts?
I think I understand what you meant now. Now that we don't have structured constants, do we need value typed methods?
Umka could do it the same way as Go does. This would be more consistent than Umka's interfaces.
However, it would require two extra features:
A means of indicating that a type assertion with a value type has failed. For example, Go's type assertion syntax in separate from type casts. @skejeton proposes a new cast-like assertion in the form
^T(&interfaceValue)
that can returnnull
on failure.Methods with non-pointer receivers. See the Go example: https://go.dev/play/p/tQx7GNmhzDm