[BobbyJo]

Does the above provide more safety/guarantees/something than just:

type hasFoo interface {

  getfoo() int

  setfoo(int)

}

func f(hasFoo) {}

?

[throwaway894345]

The equivalent Go would be something like:

    func f[T interface{.Foo}](T) {}

Of course, this doesn't exist in Go, so we must do:

    func f[T interface{GetFoo(); SetFoo()}](T) {}

And then define setters and getters on every type we want to use, including defining new types (with the commensurate setters/getters) for types that we don't own (i.e., if you import a struct from another package and it doesn't have setters and getters defined, you have to create a new type that implements those setters/getters).

[BenFrantzDale]

I don’t know Go, but I think less in that concepts are syntax guarantees, not semantic guarantees. I suspect interfaces (assuming they are opt-in) are semantic guarantees. That said, I’ve never run into this distinction being a problem, and you could provide opt-in mechanisms in C++. Of course, the C++ interface has zero runtime cost.