On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Nate Finch <nate.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd really like to see the composite literal syntax extended to work with
> non-composite types, so you could do something like this:
>
> f := Foo{ Count: &int{5} }
That doesn't work as is, because &[]interface{nil} is ambiguous. Does
it produce a slice whose length is 1 element and whose single value is
nil (as it does today), or does it produce a nil slice whose length is
zero elements (as it would if we treat &T{v} as allocating a new T and
initializing it to V).
(This overall issue has been discussed many times before, with no
clear resolution.)
Ian
--
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.
