Not exporting the mutex and other fields is a good consideration and probably does apply here. I'll keep that in mind.
Thanks, Matt On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 12:15:55 AM UTC-6, Jakob Borg wrote: > > On 8 Jan 2018, at 23:35, matthe...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > sync.RWMutex works well as an embedded struct field. Locking DB could be > db.Lock() instead of db.mu.Lock(), and the same could apply to other fields. > > > This is a common suggestion. I’ve never been very fond of it in general, > as it makes Lock()/Unlock() part of the exported API of the type. Unless > you want your API consumers to call Lock() and Unlock() it’s usually better > as a regular, non-exported field, imho. > > (I haven’t looked at the specific code in this case; it’s just the second > time in a couple of days this suggestion pops up. :) > > //jb > -- 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.
