The plan for “for;;” is much more risky than “for-each”, because “for;;”
has more variation uses in reality.
I have no doubt that many non-bug compatibility-broken or
performance-degradation cases will be found in the GOEXPERIMENT phase.
On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 2:44:59 PM UTC+8 Amnon wrote:
> Hi Gophers,
> Last year there was a discussion about removing one of the
> more common gotchas in Go.
>
> To quote from the discussion:
>
> the problem is that loops like this one don’t do what they look like they
> do:
>
> var all []*Item
> for _, item := range items { all = append(all, &item) }
>
> That is, this code has a bug. After this loop executes, all contains
> len(items) identical pointers, each pointing at the same Item, holding
> the last value iterated over. This happens because the item variable is
> per-loop, not per-iteration: &item is the same on every iteration, and
> item is overwritten on each iteration.
> https://github.com/golang/go/discussions/56010
>
> What was the resolution of this discussion?
> Was the proposed change accepted?
> Will it be released in Go 1.21 or 1.22?
>
> It is hard to figure this out from the discussion. There are hundreds of
> comments,
> but there is no clear marking of the resolution (apart from the discussion
> now being closed) either at the top of bottom of the discussion.
>
>
>
--
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/86379ce9-a958-4b57-a834-e789d1e03495n%40googlegroups.com.
