This completely answers my question.
On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 8:49:31 PM UTC-4, Steven Blenkinsop wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 2:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor > wrote:
>
>> The motivation is to avoid requiring contracts to specify whether
>> a method is a pointer method or a value method,
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 2:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The motivation is to avoid requiring contracts to specify whether a method
> is a pointer method or a value method, just as we do not require interface
> types to specify whether a method is a pointer method or a value method.
>
I'm not
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 7:05 AM Ilia Choly wrote:
>
> When converting a non-pointer value to an interface, pointer methods cannot
> be used to satisfy the interface. Even though the compiler could add
> instructions to take the value's address, this is not allowed because it's
> error prone.
When converting a non-pointer value to an interface, pointer methods cannot
be used to satisfy the interface. Even though the compiler could add
instructions to take the value's address, this is not allowed because it's
error prone. Since pointer methods usually mutate the receiver, you don't
