So, the sync/atomic package is possible to break tomorrow? On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 12:24:35 PM UTC-5, Andy Balholm wrote: > > Oops. I left out a couple words. I meant “does not keep”. > > Andy > > > On Feb 26, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Andy Balholm <andyb...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > There is no guarantee that the unsafe package even exists in every > implementation of Go. For example, I really doubt that GopherJS has it. But > that keep GopherJS from being compliant with the Go spec and the Go 1 > compatibility guarantee. (I’m not sure whether GopherJS is to the point of > full compliance yet, but my point here is that it doesn’t need “unsafe” in > order to reach that point.) > > > > Andy > > > >> On Feb 26, 2018, at 7:38 AM, di...@veryhaha.com <javascript:> wrote: > >> > >> Will the 3 APIs and the unsafe.Pointer be always there? > >> Will the "sync/atomic" package get broken? > >> This atomic package imports unsafe. > > > >
-- 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.
