Axel Wagner

I think before we can think about if and how to do this, we should first address the "no higher level abstraction" restriction of generics, i.e. the inability to pass...

> Given that it is a feature of go that interface implementation can be tested at runtime via type assertions, reflection, etc, I don't see any way around banning generic...

@alvaroloes > couldn't we achieve the same effect if we put the type parameters in the type definition? You can easily do this, but it's not the same effect. People...

To be clear, this is what the proposal says about this question: > We could instantiate it at link time, but in the general case that requires the linker to...

@seborama Consider that the interface value might have also been sent over a channel or put in a map or a slice with a lot of other dynamic types and...

@changkun That would mean that a harmless change in one package can break the behavior of another. Say, package `a` is ```go type S struct {} func (S) F[T any](T)...

> If one uses underscore for explicit instantiation, potentially it should come with a comment to state the purpose there. Hence removing it might also very likely be a change...

@jpap I have to extrapolate a bit, because you use uncommon nomenclature and leave a couple of details implicit. So, to summarize my understanding of what you suggest: 1. Generic...

@mccolljr > It seems like the 2 largest problem areas you focus on are: No, personally I think the largest problem [is the one I mention here](https://github.com/golang/go/issues/49085#issuecomment-952701440). My last comment...

@mccolljr > I said it before, and I'll say it again: you clearly have a lot of knowledge and context around this feature and its implementation details. Your asserions that...