I barely understand Go, so this is likely a stupid idea. Since Go uses nil for a lot of things, lots of things can be nil.
I am not a huge fan of the null safe accessor. ( https://github.com/golang/go/issues/42847 ) I am a huge fan of the compiler telling me the places where I have not checked for nil ... It took me a while to get used to languages which do this, but now I can't imagine living without it. Is it crazy to wish for ... if x == nil { // this does not produce an error because x is known not to be nil x.interfaceFunc() } // this DOES produce an error/warning if y is possibly nil y.interfaceFunc() -- 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/5a700cd9-9274-4756-80a6-9d322232afebn%40googlegroups.com.
