The pattern of a background stats collector is a common one. The atomic is required not optional.
> On Jun 7, 2021, at 6:16 PM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts > <golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > BTW, just to nail down the point of that code being wrong without interfaces: > Your usage of `atomic` in `Log` is superfluous. You are operating on a local > variable, so there is no possibility of concurrent modification. Your code is > equivalent to this: https://play.golang.org/p/zYG0zTsk-2a > The only reason to use `atomic` here (and why you used it) is if that memory > could be shared between goroutines. For that to happen, you need a pointer > receiver though. > > I refuse to believe that interfaces have anything to do with this obfuscation > here. There is more than enough indication of it being wrong in any case. > >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 1:05 AM Axel Wagner <axel.wagner...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:42 PM Robert Engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> I don’t think that represents the problem fairly. In the non interface case >>> I know I can’t accept a copy so I would declare the method as taking a >>> pointer to the struct. >> >> How methods are declared should, in general, not be a matter of whether or >> not they are assigned to an interface, but to whether or not they need a >> pointer. Again: Your code is incorrect without interfaces. The problem >> doesn't happen when you put that value into an interface - it happens when >> you pass a copy of it and expect it to refer to the original. Interfaces are >> just one way to create such a copy, but they do not matter for the >> correctness of this code and for whether or not that method needs a pointer >> receiver (it does). >> >> But again, to be clear: I'm not saying problems like this *never* happen and >> I'm not even saying that interfaces may obscure it in some cases. Just that >> a) the root cause here is that your method really needs to take a >> pointer-receiver, interfaces or not and b) that it seems very much an >> overstatement to me to call this "the most inconsistent and obtuse aspect of >> the Go language". >> >>> With interfaces this is lost - as the interface is implicitly a pointer >> >> Well, it seems a bad idea to say that interfaces are implicitly pointers >> then. That seems to indicate that Rob's original phrasing is indeed an >> important clarification - the language behaves as if the value contained in >> them is copied when the interface value is copied. >> >> It seems the confusion here is, that you assume it's not. And that >> interfaces act as a pointers, when they don't. > > -- > 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/CAEkBMfGVyvYYpQhCp_JkxN9EvgZ4FXJ8_WpxseJOB1OR7qt6ww%40mail.gmail.com. -- 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/DC6B566F-9D93-4EE2-BFD9-4CF797298EFD%40ix.netcom.com.
