* 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> [210608 02:54]: > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:36 AM Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> wrote: > > > You say that test cases of Log work fine, but they are only fine in a > > non-concurrent environment. The instant you test Log (without > > interfaces) in a concurrent program it fails in an obvious manner. > > > > nit: I don't think concurrency has anything to do with it either. The > failure mode is making a copy and expecting the copy and the original to > share memory.
I agree. > FWIW I agree with Robert that it's relatively easy to write a test for this > that never copies the value (though even then, if you think about using > atomics you definitely should think about writing a concurrent test and > running it with `-race` enabled, which should show the problem). Sure. > I disagree with him, however, that interfaces make it more likely to run > into the problem when *using* the code. Any even remotely realistic usage > of that code is broken. Even if you failed to write tests which surface > that breakage. Right. This is just one of many aspects of programming that require careful consideration to get right. As you keep saying, "this is suboptimal" applies, but "the most inconsistent and obtuse aspect of the Go language" is way too extreme of an assertion. ...Marvin -- 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/20210608151806.ebqigtzmdopb5qdq%40basil.wdw.
