Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> writes:
>> For us, it *did* break P1 in the sense that this silently changing its
>> semantics. And how about the following?
>>
>> type P1 struct {
>> P2
>> P3
>> }
>>
>> type P2 struct {
>> P4
>> }
>>
>> type P3 struct {
>> P5
>> }
>>
>> type P4 struct {
>> foo int
>> }
>>
>> type P5 struct {
>> // foo int
>> }
>>
>> P2 and P3 don't know each other. P1 breaks if P5 gets another foo.
>> It's almost the same (except composition depth), isn't it?
>
> Yes. You are only safe from changes deeper in the type hierarchy if
> you only reference fields defined without embedding in the types that
> you embed directly.
Understood.
Note to self: when accessing things with a composition depth >1, Thou
shalt be explicit.
Thanks for the explanation!
--
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.
