On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 9:29 PM 王旭东 <wxd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, I have a question about "addressable." > > The following code illustrates my question (see the comments): > https://go.dev/play/p/xpiPXuEqh0O?v=gotip > > > > I also posted question in the Gopher Slack channel, and @Axel Wagner provided > a detailed explanation, suggesting that this might be a gap in the Go > specification. > @Jason Phillips recommended that I ask this question in the GitHub issues and > the golang-nuts mailing list. > > I really appreciate everyone’s help mentioned, but I still don’t have a clear > conclusion. > > To simplify: my question is why the result of myfunReturnPointer() is > addressable if we strictly follow the specification.
In https://go.dev/ref/spec#Selectors the spec explains that if the type of x is a pointer, then the selector expression x.f is shorthand for (*x).f. That is the case in your playground example: the expression myfunReturnPointer().i is short for (*myfunReturnPointer()).i. The pointer indirection *myfunReturnPointer() is addressable according to https://go.dev/ref/spec#Address_operators. So this is a field selector of an addressable struct operand. Ian -- 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/CAOyqgcUL0D9a0nmXP%2BNJTPrax-ixWFUvRwuUAK5m1G-LtjzH7w%40mail.gmail.com.
