That's fair. But I think it's a worthwhile (and fairly minor) complexity
to add to the spec to make the language a lot easier to use in some very
common use cases. And, I would argue, it actually makes the language
slightly more regular, since now &T{v} works for just about everything
(possibly everything?).
I'd love to see a bigquery search for variants of declarations of func
IntP(i int) *int ... I bet there's a lot of those out there... unless
people are really doing &[]int{5}[0] ... which is just horrible.
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 2:53:31 PM UTC-4, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>
> You are simply defining away the ambiguity by saying that the specific
> slice composite literal syntax takes precedence over the &T{v}
> translates to (*new(T) = v) syntax. That is a valid approach to take,
> but it doesn't mean that there is no ambiguity. And it does mean
> additional complexity to the spec and to people's understanding of the
> language.
>
> 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.
