hi all,
I'm curious why reflect.Type is defined as an interface, but reflect.Value
is defined as a struct? I don't see any other implementation of the
reflect.Type interface.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from
Then make a dummy interface, with a method with a unique name that you
never call.
On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 16:48:28 UTC+1 Mark wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> Sorry for not being clearer. Ideally I don't want an interface: each Shape
> is essentially a store of different kinds of values so at some
Even if we assume that the addition of keyword arguments would be a
positive for the Go language and ecosystem, it wouldn't be a backward
compatible change to add a keyword argument unless we make additional
changes to the language to support implicit conversions between
function-with-keyword
I'm not sure without knowing *how* you want to use []*Shape{}. Perhaps you
want Shape to be an interface?
type Shape interface {
DrawMe()
}
type BoxShape struct ...
func (*BoxShape) DrawMe() { }
type LineShape struct ...
func (*LineShape) DrawMe() { }
shapes := []Shape{}
(Note that
Hi!
I get this crash when using the GODEBUG option gccheckmark=1:
runtime: marking free object 0xc0016c5668 found at *(0xc0046ca8e0+0x8)
base=0xc0046ca8e0 s.base()=0xc0046ca000 s.limit=0xc0046cc000 s.spanclass=8
s.elemsize=32 s.state=mSpanInUse
*(base+0) = 0x15e11f0
*(base+8) = 0xc0016c5668
Oh yes, it's true that the new mechanism is more general, and allows
integration tests, it's a huge improvement for cases like this! Thanks for
the design btw!
Now the ergonomics of the case of unit tests + integration tests could be
made easier/more ergonomic -- I would assume it is the
The reason `os.Open` has not changed is because it doesn't have to change.
None of the features you mention really make sense for what it does. At
least that would be my interpretation. If you want to support your
interpretation, I would suggest digging up proposals to add those features
which got
Thanks for commenting, a few supplements.
*# 1. Version of Go?*
We observed the issue with both go1.20.5 and go1.18.10 on linux/amd64
(centos)
*# 2. Context?*
All panics we observed so far are from either
*strconv.FormatInt -> strconv.formatBits* chain, or
I tried to use the `-test.gocoverdir` (*) and while the test(s) being
executed use the given directory, unfortunately it still sets `GOCOVERDIR`
to some newly created temporary directory.
Since my integration tests are executed from a *_test.go
On Wed, 2023-08-16 at 23:43 -0700, metronome wrote:
> Thanks for commenting, a few supplements.
>
> # 1. Version of Go?
> We observed the issue with both go1.20.5 and go1.18.10 on linux/amd64
> (centos)
>
> # 2. Context?
> All panics we observed so far are from either
>
I think the omission of keyword parameters in Go is a weakness. In many
cases, keyword parameters are a simple way of creating APIs, which depend
on a lot of possible parameters, of which most are not necessarily
specified. Their omission is especially ironic, as there is a strong push
to
On Thu, 2023-08-17 at 11:34 +0200, Peter Herth wrote:
> I think the omission of keyword parameters in Go is a weakness. In
> many cases, keyword parameters are a simple way of creating APIs,
> which depend on a lot of possible parameters, of which most are not
> necessarily specified. Their
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 5:41 PM Tibor Halter wrote:
>
> I get this crash when using the GODEBUG option gccheckmark=1:
>
> runtime: marking free object 0xc0016c5668 found at *(0xc0046ca8e0+0x8)
> base=0xc0046ca8e0 s.base()=0xc0046ca000 s.limit=0xc0046cc000 s.spanclass=8
> s.elemsize=32
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:02 AM Hu Jian wrote:
>
> I'm curious why reflect.Type is defined as an interface, but reflect.Value is
> defined as a struct? I don't see any other implementation of the reflect.Type
> interface.
reflect.Value is an ordinary struct. The reflect.Type interface is
14 matches
Mail list logo
