On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:12 AM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
<golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:53 PM targe...@gmail.com <target....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Because you then must remember about this specific case every time you cast
>> potentially nil pointer variable to interface. Every time you must write `if
>> x != nil { return x; } else { return nil; }` instead of just `return x;`
>
>
> This is true, but that alone is not indicative of a problem. You have to
> remember that `select` does a pseudo-random selection of cases everytime you
> use it, that you can't write to nil-maps, that dereferencing a nil-pointer
> might panic, that an index-expression might panic, that integer-addition
> might overflow, that floating-point math has counter-intuitive edge-cases,
> that init-functions run before main… you have to remember a *lot* of things
> every time you need them.
>
> I don't want to sound dismissive (as I said, I do think there is obviously
> *some* problem) but I don't run into cases where I would even be *tempted* to
> do this. Like, in your example, you'd need to a) have a declared pointer, b)
> would need to be oblivious to the fact on whether or not it's nil and c) it
> would have to be an invalid value if so and d) it would have to be a problem
> not caught by other means (e.g. returning a non-nil error alongside it). And
> when I am tempted to do this, I just know that the interface value will still
> be non-nil. And even when I don't, the most trivial of testing catches the
> problem.
>
> Like, I'm not saying it *never* happens or even that it never happens *to
> me*. But it seems very rarely cause significant problems and I don't
> understand why people put it so high up their list of being confusing or hard
> to remember.
I saw this happen mostly after refactoring code to replace structs
with interfaces. Functions start returning interfaces instead of
concrete types, and there is no obvious indication in the code that
might alert the potential problem. Even though this problem is usually
discussed in the context of returning errors, this happened to me
multiple times with types other than errors, and always after
refactoring. I agree that it rarely causes problems, but when it does,
it is hard to find because there is usually a nil-check and no obvious
reason to doubt that would fail.
A go vet addition that detects and warns against this might be more
useful than a language facility. I remember discussing this before and
the concern was false-positives, so a warning instead of an error
would be useful.
>
>
>>
>> > But solutions that try to give special treatment to nil-values when they
>> > are put into interfaces just seem wrong to me.
>>
>> Because nils or null pointers are indeed special. They mean "Points to no
>> data". So dereference operation on such pointer leads to exceptional state.
>> In fact, nullable pointer in terms of richer type systems is a sum-type
>> `nil|*T` where `*T` always points to some valid object
>
>
> Okay. But even in those languages, `nil` (or `None` or `Nothing` or whatever
> you call it is still a perfectly acceptable value, with significant semantic
> meaning. Yes, in those languages the compiler is able to prevent you from
> dereferencing it, but the value is still just a value like any other. If
> anything, the fact that even languages with very rich type-systems include
> types like `Maybe` shows how important `nil` as a possible value is.
> Otherwise you wouldn't have to put it in artificially.
>
>> > The rule is very simple: A nil-interface is one that has no dynamic value.
>> > All values are treated the same for this purpose. All types are treated
>> > the same. I don't understand how that is anything but simple and
>> > consistent. It might be less understandable for some other reason, but I
>> > don't think it's simplicity or consistency.
>>
>> Please don't forget that interface pointer isn't simple. It's a so-called
>> "fat pointer" which consists of pointer to data and pointer to methods
>> table. Thus, we have 4 potential states
>
>
> That's one way to look at it. And you are trying to make that way look pretty
> complicated. But you are talking about implementation details. It's like
> arguing strings are very complicated, because they can a) be string-constants
> held in read-only memory, b) be heap-allocated or c) be stack-allocated.
>
> Another way to look at it is that an interface is a type, that may or may not
> contain a dynamic value of some other type and allows calling methods on it.
> If it doesn't, the interface-value is nil. If it does, it isn't. That's the
> way interfaces are defined in the spec.
>
> I am still against teaching interfaces to newcomers as "two pointers, one to
> a type and one to a value". It leads to exactly the kinds of confusion you
> are expressing here, because people think about the representation and want
> to operate on that, instead of thinking about the semantics. It is completely
> unnecessary and often counterproductive to think of interfaces that way.
>
>>
>> Why is this an issue? Because most interface implementations require valid
>> data pointer. "Static" (i.e. not needing data) implementations can be
>> considered corner case.
>
>
> It's not about needing data or not needing data. It's about deriving meaning
> from the fact that there is none. As I said, this is clearly important and
> used regularly - otherwise languages wouldn't need to add a `Maybe` (or
> whatever) type to do it.
>
> More importantly, if a pointer-type can't act on nil-pointers, that's a
> problem *orthogonal* to whether you put it into an interface or not. If you
> return an invalid value, it doesn't become valid just because you call it a
> `*T` instead of an `io.Reader`. If being able to return a `nil`-pointer as a
> type for which that isn't a valid value is a problem, then that should be
> impossible - not wrapping that value in an interface.
>
>> So if we're hypothetically designing language with such fat pointers
>
>
> You are reversing the approach here. We should design a language to have
> certain semantics and then write an implementation for that, not the other
> way around. By turning this around, you are limiting the solution space you
> are looking at, namely:
>
>>
>> One way […]. The other way […]
>
>
> I gave you a third solution: Having a separate identifier for the zero value
> of interfaces.
>
>>
>> On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 1:14:17 PM UTC+3 axel.wa...@googlemail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:39 AM targe...@gmail.com <targe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I'm saying the current situation is less confusing than what you
>>>> > describe, yes.
>>>> > AIUI, with what you describe, if I have a variable `x` of type `*T` and
>>>> > an interface variable `y`, then `y = x` and `y = (*T)(x)` have different
>>>> > semantics. I think it is strange to have a conversion of `x` *to its own
>>>> > type* have any sort of semantic implication. It should be a no-op.
>>>>
>>>> It may be expressed in some different way. To me, if `x == nil` and then
>>>> `y != nil` after `y = x` is much more confusing.
>>>
>>>
>>> And obviously you are not alone. Even though I really don't understand why
>>> this isn't just one of those "you learn about it, you know about it, you
>>> never run into any problems again" type of things. It does seem to come up
>>> sufficiently often to be a problem. And there are solutions that I think
>>> are fine. For example, using a different identifier (say `none`) to denote
>>> the zero-value of interfaces would be fine by me.
>>>
>>> But solutions that try to give special treatment to nil-values when they
>>> are put into interfaces just seem wrong to me. They single out nil-values
>>> as somehow special or less valid than other values. They single out
>>> pointer/slice/map/chan types as somehow special over int/bool/string/…
>>> types. It just seems undeniable to me, that they make the language *less*
>>> consistent.
>>>
>>>> If you ask my opinion, I would make interfaces compare to nil on just data
>>>> pointer. If one wanted interface which doesn't require data, he could've
>>>> easily created one with static stub variable. No additional checks, no
>>>> "semi-nil" fat pointers, everything simple and consistent.
>>>
>>>
>>> The rule is very simple: A nil-interface is one that has no dynamic value.
>>> All values are treated the same for this purpose. All types are treated the
>>> same. I don't understand how that is anything but simple and consistent. It
>>> might be less understandable for some other reason, but I don't think it's
>>> simplicity or consistency.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 12:20:59 PM UTC+3
>>>> axel.wa...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:10 AM targe...@gmail.com <targe...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it would definitely. Though price for consistency looks very much
>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think "consistency" is at all the right word here. If anything,
>>>>> things would get *less* consistent, not more.
>>>>>
>>>>>> > Personally, I would also find it very confusing, if converting a T to
>>>>>> > a T changed program behavior
>>>>>> Sorry, didn't get it. Are you saying that nil pointer -> nil interface
>>>>>> is more confusing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm saying the current situation is less confusing than what you
>>>>> describe, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> AIUI, with what you describe, if I have a variable `x` of type `*T` and
>>>>> an interface variable `y`, then `y = x` and `y = (*T)(x)` have different
>>>>> semantics. I think it is strange to have a conversion of `x` *to its own
>>>>> type* have any sort of semantic implication. It should be a no-op.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 11:49:16 AM UTC+3
>>>>>> axel.wa...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:06 AM targe...@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <targe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure if it was mentioned here, but IMO the main issues isn't nil
>>>>>>>> data itself, but how easy it's created. It'd be much less of a
>>>>>>>> surprise if creating nil-data required explicit cast from nil struct
>>>>>>>> pointer to interface pointer and resulted in just nil interface
>>>>>>>> pointer in case of implicit cast. Though such change is almost
>>>>>>>> certainly breaking one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would require to insert extra nil-checks when assigning a
>>>>>>> pointer-value to an interface, as the compiler can't know if a pointer
>>>>>>> is nil or not. Personally, I would also find it very confusing, if
>>>>>>> converting a T to a T changed program behavior (though arguably, there
>>>>>>> is one such case currently with `uintptr(uintptr(unsafe.Pointer))`. But
>>>>>>> usage of `unsafe` seems sufficiently advanced).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 7:08:17 AM UTC+3 alex.be...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can we at least move with the
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/22729 , please? Anything will
>>>>>>>>> help with the current mess.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 8:52:30 PM UTC-7, Ian Lance Taylor
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 1:16 PM Denis Cheremisov
>>>>>>>>>> <denis.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > You may use something like this
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > value2 :=
>>>>>>>>>> > *(*uint64)(unsafe.Pointer(uintptr(unsafe.Pointer(&value)) + 8))
>>>>>>>>>> > if value2 == 0 {
>>>>>>>>>> > return true
>>>>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > on AMD64, should work also for any 64 bit architecture (at least I
>>>>>>>>>> > believe so). Remember though this is hacky and may stop working
>>>>>>>>>> > once.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You could do that, but please don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > воскресенье, 23 августа 2020 г. в 22:58:51 UTC+3, Aviv Eyal:
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> I was trying to show that the current behavior is confusing and
>>>>>>>>>> >> that fmt.Print() needing to resort to panic-and-recover is kinda
>>>>>>>>>> >> code smell, but I sorts-of convinced myself that the current
>>>>>>>>>> >> behavior is right, or at least consistent.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> In my code, I got bit because I sometimes use v *Type to denote
>>>>>>>>>> >> "I may or may not have a value here" (where Type is a value-type).
>>>>>>>>>> >> This is probably a bad practice on my behalf, because I break the
>>>>>>>>>> >> Liskov substitution principle: there is a value of `*Type` that
>>>>>>>>>> >> is not a valid value of `Type`, and I let this value slip by.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> In this case, `v Type` implements Stringer (i.e. valid callee for
>>>>>>>>>> >> `v.String()`, but `v *Type`, in the strictest sense, does not.
>>>>>>>>>> >> The only reason we can write:
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> func (Type) String() string {...}
>>>>>>>>>> >> v *Type = &Type{...}
>>>>>>>>>> >> _ = v.String()
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> and have it compile, is syntactic sugar: `v` gets implicitly
>>>>>>>>>> >> de-referenced, and there's an implicit assumption that it's not
>>>>>>>>>> >> nil.
>>>>>>>>>> >> And there's a matching syntactic sugar for converting `Type` to a
>>>>>>>>>> >> `*Type`.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> So, In the code:
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> func (Type) String() string {...}
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> v *Type = nil
>>>>>>>>>> >> r interface{} = v
>>>>>>>>>> >> _, ok = r.(Stringer)
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> What I really want to ask is "Can I, at runtime, call
>>>>>>>>>> >> r.String()?", whereas the question Go answers is "Is any of `r`,
>>>>>>>>>> >> `*r`, or `&r` defines .String()?" - which matches the static
>>>>>>>>>> >> semantics of `r.String()`.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> So, while I should probably not use *Type as a replacement for
>>>>>>>>>> >> Optional<Type>, I think it might make sense to have some operator
>>>>>>>>>> >> that can determine, at run-time, if a call `r.String()` is valid
>>>>>>>>>> >> (including a nil-check).
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> -- Aviv
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 4:48:28 PM UTC+3
>>>>>>>>>> >> ren...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> I agree with the OP. The usefulness of nil interfaces is pretty
>>>>>>>>>> >>> limited. Show me a useful case that cant easily be implemented
>>>>>>>>>> >>> with non-nil interfaces.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> I would argue that allowing nil interfaces causes more subtle
>>>>>>>>>> >>> latent bugs and makes it harder to reason about the correctness
>>>>>>>>>> >>> of code when reviewing it.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> It just feels wrong. I realize I’m probably in the minority here
>>>>>>>>>> >>> but the OP is not alone.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> On Apr 11, 2020, at 8:20 AM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
>>>>>>>>>> >>> <golan...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:17 PM <cpu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> I realize I'm reviving an age-old discussion here and apologize
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> for bringing up the undead. I happend to run into this when my
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> application panicked when some interfaces where initialized
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> with nil mock objects instead of being left uninitialized as in
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> production mode.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Let's imagine a world in which `foo == nil` also is true if
>>>>>>>>>> >>> `foo` is an interface-value containing a nil-pointer. Let's say
>>>>>>>>>> >>> in this world, someone sends a message to golang-nuts. They
>>>>>>>>>> >>> wrote a mock for the same code. And since it's just a mock, they
>>>>>>>>>> >>> just returned static value from its methods and didn't need to
>>>>>>>>>> >>> care if the pointer was nil or not. They are confused, because
>>>>>>>>>> >>> the passed in this mock, but the code just assumed the field was
>>>>>>>>>> >>> uninitialized and never called into their mock. What would you
>>>>>>>>>> >>> tell them? Why is their confusion less valid?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> This would be an example where a nil implementing fooer is
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> never caught:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> type fooer interface {
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> foo()
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> type other struct{}
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> func (o *other) foo() {} // implement fooer
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> func main() {
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> var f fooer
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> var p *other // nil
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> f = p // it is a fooer so I can assign it
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> if f == nil {
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> // will not get here
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> My confusion comes from the point that the nil interface is
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> apparently not "a nil-pointer with the correct method set"
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> while *other is even if nil.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> In the code you posted, even a nil *other is a perfectly fine
>>>>>>>>>> >>> implementation of fooer. You can call `(*other)(nil).foo()`
>>>>>>>>>> >>> without any problems.
>>>>>>>>>> >>> So, as you illustrated, calling methods on a nil-pointer can be
>>>>>>>>>> >>> totally fine. A nil-interface, OTOH, doesn't have any methods to
>>>>>>>>>> >>> call, as it doesn't contain a dynamic value. If you write
>>>>>>>>>> >>> `(*other)(nil).foo()`, it is completely clear what code gets
>>>>>>>>>> >>> called - even if that code *might* panic. If you write
>>>>>>>>>> >>> `fooer(nil).foo()`, what code should be called in your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> I think it's easy to see that a nil-interface and a nil-pointer
>>>>>>>>>> >>> stored in an interface are very different things. Even from
>>>>>>>>>> >>> first principles, without deep knowledge of the language. And if
>>>>>>>>>> >>> they are obviously different, I don't understand why you'd find
>>>>>>>>>> >>> it confusing that they are not the same in this particular
>>>>>>>>>> >>> manner.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> The above is a case where that might happen. In can be worked
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> around but it is unexpected unless the programmer is deeply
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> rooted in the language definition.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> I fully agree with that. What I *don't* agree with, is where you
>>>>>>>>>> >>> attribute the problem here. You say, the problem is that the
>>>>>>>>>> >>> nil-check is ill-behaved. I say that - if anything - the
>>>>>>>>>> >>> original nil-assignment is ill-behaved. Having
>>>>>>>>>> >>> `(fooer)((*other)(nil)) == nil` be true is semantically wrong,
>>>>>>>>>> >>> because by checking against `nil`, you are checking if you have
>>>>>>>>>> >>> a correct implementation - and you might well have a correct
>>>>>>>>>> >>> implementation, even if it's using a nil-pointer.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Note, that the contained pointer being nil isn't the *only* case
>>>>>>>>>> >>> in which calling the method might panic. For example, what about
>>>>>>>>>> >>> this code?
>>>>>>>>>> >>> https://play.golang.org/p/lNq0qphez7v
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Shouldn't the `nil`-check also catch that? After all, calling
>>>>>>>>>> >>> the method panics, so it's clearly not a valid implementation -
>>>>>>>>>> >>> even if x itself is not nil. Why is a nil-pointer more special
>>>>>>>>>> >>> than any other value that causes a method to panic?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Seems as of today that there is no tooling to support that
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> check. Maybe it's not a widespread issue.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> As of today, the language also isn't changed :) Maybe someone
>>>>>>>>>> >>> who think this is important enough to change the language, could
>>>>>>>>>> >>> also feel it's important enough to write this tooling.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/e0dbcd38-510e-43b9-b363-2af1c636250b%40googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> --
>>>>>>>>>> >>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>>>> >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfEPjcsZ3enqXyt%2BUphFJ1cNQ81cFCcjfwwkQZKHMrjSzA%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>>>>> > 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 golan...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/c1ed2e38-6215-4ed2-8357-f8b5d83bf1a7n%40googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/84244528-84e6-4c2e-89bf-7fbf0590e132n%40googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/46d92421-a3a8-4b8a-b557-aa14d79e55b6n%40googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/31df134b-7e55-4f32-9e1f-6d974817891en%40googlegroups.com.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4613df4c-9342-4285-9b8d-823afa82f58en%40googlegroups.com.
>
> --
> 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.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfHXb16N4XcN%3Deu%3DZKMF-91RjsbEM4WRyydj-yR3BRW6xA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAMV2RqrLbygZJvy6gqCJbt3r30_9u5EqZCpXedyE%3DyCFErLXvQ%40mail.gmail.com.
