Hello st ov What do you mean with "even though a value receiver would be acceptable" ? Your sample code clearly shows that after foo.SetVal(1) , we still have foo.val == 0 which looks unacceptable to me (broken setter).
Is it possible that you are confusing "is the method receiver a reference type" with "are the method arguments reference types" ? In any case, when you want your method to modify the receiver, you *must* use a reference receiver (i.e. pointer), doing otherwise would be pointless (modifying a copy, which would immediately be discarded when method returns). If you wonder about passing value arguments (e.g. val int) or reference arguments (e.g. ref []int) : both are possible and may be mixed. But this is mostly unrelated to the pointerness of the receiver. HTH Val On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 2:20:06 AM UTC+1, st ov wrote: > > Is it idiomatic to mix-&-match pointer and value method receivers for a > given type? > or in *general*, if a single method requires a pointer receiver than *all > methods* should take a pointer, regardless if a value receiver is > appropriate? > > For example, should Foo.SetVal also be a pointer receiver even though a > value receiver would be acceptable? > https://play.golang.org/p/rd_6BLol8O > > type Foo struct{ > ref []int > val int > } > > // would not set if method receiver is value receiver (foo Foo) > func (foo *Foo) SetRef(ref []int) { > foo.ref = ref > } > func (foo Foo) SetVal(val int) { > foo.val = val > } > > func main() { > foo := Foo{} > foo.SetRef([]int{1,2,3}) > foo.SetVal(1) > > fmt.Printf("%v",foo) // {[1 2 3] 0} > } > > > > -- 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.
