When I need to do this, I find it's only a very minor annoyance to define:
func newInt(i int) { return &i }
If Go ever got generics, this would probably be trivial to write
generically, for example:
func Ref[T](x T) *T { return &x }
I don't think I'd object if we added a new builtin function called "ref"
with the above semantics. It worked pretty well in Limbo as an operator.
On 21 Oct 2016 22:44, "Nate Finch" <nate.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps regular was the wrong choice of phrasing. From an end-user's
> perspective, it makes the language more consistent, rather than having
> &T{v} work for some of the more complex values of T, but not for the more
> simple values of T.
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:59 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:20 PM Nate Finch <nate.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > And, I would argue, it actually makes the language slightly more
>> regular, since now &T{v} works for just about everything (possibly
>> everything?).
>>
>> Taking the address of an addressable thing is the regular proper. Taking
>> address of a non-addressable things, even though practical, is syntactic
>> sugar. Enlarging the surface of the later irregularity cannot make anything
>> more regular.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -j
>>
> --
> 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.
>
--
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.
