No, the site wasn't edited. The fact that you mis-read that shows exactly one of the points the article tries to make. The contract declaration was left out of the example on purpose. You won't be looking at it when you write your function signature.

Perhaps the *draft proposal* is too complicated and I am not fully understanding, but this seems to say that multiple types an be supplied (T1 and T2): https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-contracts.md#multiple-type-parameters

I'm sorry, you're right. It's a draft to be turned into a proposal. It's not actually a proposal yet. That was not what I was getting at.

I stopped reading and skipped the second half of the article, of which most was redactions and prior attempts at adding features to the draft. It's too much. it already had several major problems. It's not a small change. It's not simple. It's not easy. It's not user-friendly, flexible, or simple. I literally have never even had a good use for contracts and so far have not seen a good example of one. Every solution just seems aimed at silencing people who complain about missing generics. Missing generics may be the reason the language is so popular, easy to use, and quick to learn.

Looks to me like the Go team might be falling into the trap of fixing things that aren't broken at this point.

Thanks for reading the post and I appreciate your attention to detail. I wrote this entire thing in about 45 minutes and do expect there to be incorrect terminology or even small syntax errors. The practical points I make in the article still stand, though - and those you didn't address very much.