On 4/12/21 11:31 AM, Jan Mercl wrote:
I believe no silent allocation and no conversion to a slice of runes
occurs. A single instance of variable c, of type rune, exists within
the loop. There's no problem with modifying 'c'. A problem exists if
the _address_ of 'c' is assumed to point to
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:01 AM Luke Wilson wrote:
>
> I've heard several times from members of the community (on Matrix and
> possibly on answers) that a simple iteration like
>
> const mixed = "\b5Ὂg̀9! ℃ᾭG"
> for _, c := range mixed {
> ... do something with c (but not write to it)
>
> will
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 6:01 PM Luke Wilson wrote:
> I've heard several times from members of the community (on Matrix and
> possibly on answers) that a simple iteration like
>
> const mixed = "\b5Ὂg̀9! ℃ᾭG"
> for _, c := range mixed {
> ... do something with c (but not write to it)
>
> will
I've heard several times from members of the community (on Matrix and
possibly on answers) that a simple iteration like
const mixed = "\b5Ὂg̀9! ℃ᾭG"
for _, c := range mixed {
... do something with c (but not write to it)
will actually silently allocate a slice of runes and decode the
