On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:30:01 PM UTC+8, xiio...@gmail.com wrote: > > I get the original points. Though the current behaviour is in my opinion > consistent with https://golang.org/ref/spec#Method_declarations > "[Receiver] must be of the form T or *T (possibly using parentheses) where > T is a type name" and https://golang.org/ref/spec#Method_sets I can see > the case for extending methods to include any depth of indirection. > > Though I've never had a use case for methods on **T, it's clear that **T > 's can have real uses. > > If a language extension was requested, which behaviour would you prefer > for the method sets > > ie > > ***T has methods of ***T, **T, *T, T > or > ***T has methods of just ***T and **T > ? >
They are the same. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
