|
|
|
|
|
|
by krakensden
3255 days ago
|
|
|
People say this, but it isn't really true- you could use the sort.Interface interface like everyone else. Consumer wants to use your custom map with their custom type? Make sure it supports Less. Speaking of sort.Interface, people say they want generics, but I think there is an implicit ask for operator overloading, too. Or the code they are asking to not write is probably still going to be there. |
|
|
1. So you have a map of sort.Interface, and that's just as absolutely-not-convenient-or-type-safe as a map of interface{}
2. TFA does not want a sorted map, they want an ordered map, so sort.Interface has no relevance whatsoever: the order of iteration of an ordered map is the order of insertion, not the sort order of the elements.
> Speaking of sort.Interface, people say they want generics, but I think there is an implicit ask for operator overloading, too. Or the code they are asking to not write is probably still going to be there.
Not really. Java does OK without operator overloading. Having to use methods instead of operators can be annoying in some cases (mostly when working with non-built-in numerics e.g. decimals or infinite-precision integrals) but it doesn't limit you much if it does at all.