On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 7:19 PM Jamil Djadala <djad...@datamax.bg> wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:34:25 -0700 > Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote: > > > That said, I have to agree that defining methods on types defined by > > cgo is never necessary and can only cause confusion. And cgo could > > report an error when it sees it. So please consider opening an issue > > to change cmd/cgo to issue an error for an attempt to define a method > > on a type defined in the C pseudo-package. Thanks. > > > > Does this is covered by go backward compatibility promise ? > Because i saw package on github, that use this "feature" to implement > error interface on C.int, mapping return error codes from C api to go > errors.
Huh. This is not covered by the backward compatibility guarantee, which doesn't cover cgo. But I guess we could keep it. Ian -- 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.
