Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Why are channels, tasks, ports, strings, vectors etc. built-in types rather than (say) special kinds of obj?

0
Posted

Why are channels, tasks, ports, strings, vectors etc. built-in types rather than (say) special kinds of obj?

0

In each case there is one or more operator, literal constructor, overloaded use or integration with a built-in control structure that makes us think it would be awkward to phrase the type in terms of more-general type constructors. Same as, say, with numbers! But this is partly an aesthetic call and, similarly to with the log statement, we’d be willing to look at a worked-out proposal for eliminating or rephrasing these special cases.

Related Questions

Thanksgiving questions

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.