I don’t believe your example is correct. In order for a current wrapper to call Flush on Close on the bufio.Writer the Close would need to be defined on the Wrapper struct so there would be no name collision.
I think it is best to see the proposal before commenting. I plan on addressing any code breaking issues - if there were obvious ones I wouldn’t be for the proposal either. > On May 23, 2019, at 6:14 AM, roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have to say that I must prefer APIs that do not take arbitrary advantage of > dynamically discovered methods. It makes things less clear, and adding a > wrapper to flush and then close the underlying writer is not hard. In fact > the idiom for doing so is probably the reason why it's not feasible to add a > Close method to `bufio.Writer`. If you do that, then you run the risk of > breaking current code that adds its own Close method: > > https://play.golang.org/p/xidNo2Z_OYB > > This would definitely break some code that I've written. > > cheers, > rog. > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/93D441AB-D98F-48F6-8BCA-E555F98919DC%40ix.netcom.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
