Sorry, I only brought it up because it seemed related to me, and the original question was answered as No...
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 6:06 PM, Dan Kortschak <dan.kortsc...@adelaide.edu.au> > wrote: > > I don't agree that it was a bad idea. It eases reading and writing in > many cases. The mutability of a value is based on the method signature, > which is readily available through the godoc. > >> On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 17:57 -0600, Robert Engels wrote: >> I understand that. I was stating that the syntactic sugar of >> automatic pointer creation to call a method should be removed. Having >> an A become a *A in one instance but not in others just causes >> confusion, let alone makes things not obviously mutable, mutable, >> causing a developer to determine that the method actually have a >> pointer receiver. I know it won’t because of backwards compatibility, >> but it was a very bad choice IMO. -- 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.
