This thread helped me to understand better the current scenario and the implications of a future change.
I would be glad to recognize if this conversation had changed my mind, but it didn't. Some programmers discovered that they could use this "valid nil interface" to do some smart tricks, as Jakob kindly has shown. While I do recognize that was indeed smart, Jakob offered another easy way of attaining the desired effect for his constructor. It would be pretty easy if he had to code that way to begin with. I consider unfortunate the fact that I can't safely use an interface where previously I used a pointer. To me, at least, that is a natural evolutionary path for a piece of software as soon as the developer discover opportunities to leverage the commonality of an interface. I think such possibility would be more broadly useful than what we can do now. Go has a bunch of interesting tricks and useful idioms, but this trick is proving costly. Thanks to everyone. -- 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.
