Correction. They didn't say *r2 := *r; they said r2 := *r. Also read the example. They returned &r2 instead of r2. The code is equivalent to but shorter than the original.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:11 PM Matt Harden <matt.har...@gmail.com> wrote: They didn't say *r2 := *r; he said r2 := *r. Also read the example. They returned &r instead of r. The code is equivalent but shorter than the code in the package. On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 2:32 PM Dan Kortschak <dan.kortsc...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote: On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 22:59 -0800, vova...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm wondering, if there's any benefit of writing* r2 := new(Request); > *r2 = *r *rather than shorter *r2 := *r (example below) *or this is > just matter of style preference? *r2 := *r is not legal. https://play.golang.org/p/28y-zWhvoQ -- 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.
