Strings are easier than []byte because they are immutable. On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:08:36 AM UTC-6, Henrik Johansson wrote: > > What makes strings harder than for example []byte? > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017, 06:15 Ian Lance Taylor <ia...@golang.org > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Eliot Hedeman >> <eliot.d...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: >> > I was writing up a proposal about adding the small string >> > optimization(putting strings on the heap if they will fit within the >> > sringStruct)to the go runtime, and I realized there might be good >> reason why >> > this has not been done yet. Are there any glaring reasons you can think >> of? >> > Here is the really rough draft of the proposal. Thanks for the feedback! >> >> The problem is that the concurrent garbage collector needs to be able >> to determine reliably and safely whether a word in memory, including >> on the stack, contains a pointer or not. It's not OK to have a word >> in memory that might or might contain a pointer. It's a good thing >> that Go doesn't have unions in the language, because they would be >> very difficult to implement in the garbage collector. >> >> Ian >> >> -- >> 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...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >
-- 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.
