>From the Laws of Reflection[1]:

> It's a powerful tool that should be used with care and avoided unless
> strictly necessary. 

The reflect package is not mentioned in the spec (except once to
discuss struct tags), adding a built-in would require its definition
there, and complicate the language. Making it easier to use would also
have the disadvantage of increasing its use, packages with heavy
reflect use tend to be harder to reason about by virtue of having
reduced type constraints.


On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 13:51 -0700, Gert wrote:
> Yes but its the way it's done that i think could be made more 
> straightforward, why not merge ValueOf and TypeOf in a build in 
> intermediate reflect type as in for example int(4) but then
> reflect(4)

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.

Reply via email to