On Thu, 2021-07-29 at 11:45 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > Should this be "unspecified" rather than "undefined"? > > The general concern here is that if there is something like a file > descriptor involved, and if the Close method doesn't take special > protection to avoid problems with multiple calls to Close, then a > first call to Close may close the descriptor, then some other > goroutine may open something and get the same descriptor number, and > then a second call to Close may close the same descriptor number, > breaking the other goroutine unexpectedly. Historically, we forgot > to > say that it was OK to call Close multiple times. By the time we > wrote > that comment, there were many existing Close implementations out > there, and it wasn't clear that we wanted to, or reasonably could, > make them non-compliant. So unfortunately I think we kind of do mean > "undefined".
Yeah, fair enough. The leakage to other goroutines definitely justifies the undefined wording. Dan -- 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/6671249cc777143f0de2c7eff6fe687bd348fb8a.camel%40kortschak.io.
