On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:12:22 PM UTC-8, Dave Cheney wrote: > > It's true it is an exception, it's one of the few cases where the language > adds a pinch of syntactic sugar to make the experience more pleasurable. >
I'd describe this more as removing a pinch of syntactic sugar. I can imagine without this the number one oft repeated feature request > would be to _not_ have to write (&t).m() all the time when you just wanted > to write t.m(). > Maybe so, but you know where that leads. Soon those people will start complaining about the requirement for explicit type conversions too. Anyway, thanks for confirming my reaction. Jon -- 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.
