On Friday, 26 August 2016 16:32:47 UTC+1, T L wrote: > > > > 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. > > No they are not the same
Take the examples literally, do not expect recursive additions of method sets. The language specification https://golang.org/ref/spec states the difference between "methods" and "method sets" I specifically said "methods", not "method sets" in the example. -- 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.
