I get the original points. Though the current behaviour is in my opinion consistent with https://golang.org/ref/spec#Method_declarations "[Receiver] must be of the form T or *T (possibly using parentheses) where T is a type name" and https://golang.org/ref/spec#Method_sets I can see the case for extending methods to include any depth of indirection.
Though I've never had a use case for methods on **T, it's clear that **T 's can have real uses. If a language extension was requested, which behaviour would you prefer for the method sets ie ***T has methods of ***T, **T, *T, T or ***T has methods of just ***T and **T ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
