On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:44 AM Daniel Lepage <dplep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not proposing that *any* value be made nillable, I'm proposing the > explicit syntax > > var x uint8 | nil > > that would create a nillable uint8. A variable of type `byte` would still > only take up one byte; a variable of type `byte | nil` would be larger. > Existing code, which obviously doesn't use the `| nil` syntax because it > doesn't exist yet, would be completely unaffected by this change. > Any such proposal would have to specify how this interacts with types that are already nillable. Consider var p *int | nil p = nil Does this make p "unset"? Does it set p to *int(nil)? How can subsequent code distinguish between the cases where p is unset and p has the value *int(nil)? Also, given var a any | nil are there _three_ different ways in which a can be nil (a is unset, any(nil), or, say, *int(nil))? People are already confused by having two different ways for interface values to be nil. -- 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/CAADvV_vWZD6cmNY%2BFX4aU-_XRYNBHBgnRCoNyn_21DOz-9zVnQ%40mail.gmail.com.
