Ian Denhardt

Quoting Ross Light (2017-02-21 11:18:32) > I think it would be hard to have the transitive closure of types in > general. Not sure I see why?

I had been thinking the former.

Just wanted to record a problem that's been in my head re: a problem that crops up with this and default arguments: suppose a schema adds a new field to...

I can't speak for others, but for myself: my own development priorities are primarily driven either by the needs of downstream projects I'm involved with, or by clients who are...

Makes sense to me.

Half-baked thought: what if we changed things so that instead of defining interface types as `type Foo struct { Client }`, we just did `type Foo Client`? Then, `CapList` could...

That's what we have now, but it means `CapList` can't be used for base `Client`, only the generated interface types that wrap it. This would allow it to be used...

This is done, closing.

While picking through the implementation for other stuff, I realized that `ReleaseFunc`s are kindof useless for pipelining anyway, since (I *think*) they block until the call returns anyway. As far...

Note that this is *completely* untested (though it compiles), and should not be merged; it's really for discussion only.