Perhaps regular was the wrong choice of phrasing. From an end-user's
perspective, it makes the language more consistent, rather than having
&T{v} work for some of the more complex values of T, but not for the more
simple values of T.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:59 PM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:20 PM Nate Finch <nate.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And, I would argue, it actually makes the language slightly more
> regular, since now &T{v} works for just about everything (possibly
> everything?).
>
> Taking the address of an addressable thing is the regular proper. Taking
> address of a non-addressable things, even though practical, is syntactic
> sugar. Enlarging the surface of the later irregularity cannot make anything
> more regular.
>
> --
>
> -j
>
--
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.
