<vanila> hey
<simcity2000> vanila: hi
<vanila> what about a module system with SML style functors? wouldn't that make go cooler
<simcity2000> vanila: no
<taruti> actually doing generics with SML like module system would be kind of nifty :)
<vanila> simcity2000, why not?
<simcity2000> vanila: cool isn't the metric for defining how good a language is, but that aside I think you'd need a pretty different notion of types to make that sort of thing work in Go
<vanila> simcity2000, oh when I thought it through, I thought this would work without any changes to go - the reason I bring it up is because it solves the generics/polymorphism problem
<Tv`> vanila: nice troll
<vanila> Tv`, you've seen me here for weeks, you know I'm not trolling. What's are the bad vibes for?
<jmoiron> there've been a lot of trolls today
<Tv`> vanila: "generics" ... "thought it through" .. "without any changes to go"
<vanila> Tv`, simcity2000 said it would require changes to the type system - I was trying to say that it wouldn't. If this is a touchy/painful subject I'll talk about it with other people I know that are interested in go than you all
<Tv`> good luck on your chosen path
<simcity2000> vanila: it's an interesting idea if you're going from the generics angle
<taruti> vanila: what issues do you think there are with type system semantics with SML style modules and Go?
<taruti> *simcity2000
<vanila> taruti, You cannot create a homogenous linked list along the lines of http://golang.org/pkg/container/list/ - you can create a hetrogenous list this way. If you had SML style modules you could get the best of both worlds
<taruti> vanila: yes, I know...
<Tv`> e-dard: "solution", right
<vanila> taruti, That was in answer to the question you asked me
<taruti> vanila: no.
* bfrog (~tburdick@unaffiliated/submersive) has joined
<vanila> why are you all being so rude to me and acting so hurt?
<taruti> vanila: I was trying to ask simcity2000 what issues they think there would be fitting them together from a type system soundness perspective.
<simcity2000> taruti: I was actually thinking about Haskell-style functors, where you have a functor typeclass that relies on generic types
<taruti> simcity2000: Haskell type classes are very different from SML modules.
<simcity2000> apparently I don't know SML-style functors.
* nemothekid has quit (Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
* scottferg ([email protected]) has joined
<simcity2000> taruti: that's what I just picked up
<vanila> yeah I don't think you guys have understood what I'm suggesting, that would explain Tv` who is normally intelligent calling me a troll
 Tv`!*@* added to ignore list.
<simcity2000> vanila: feel free to elaborate, I don't have much to do atm
<vanila> simcity2000: Well it's just a small change to make modules parametrized, then you could do generic containers in a type-safe way
* skitoo has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
<simcity2000> taruti: are SML functors just a $something that takes in structures with a given signature and produces new structures?
<e-dard> Tv` I think you misunderstood the issue. I'm doing that already. The issue is packages test binaries get run in parallel by default (if you have a multi-core cpu)