Well you're talking about method receivers, not struct fields. It's a
similar shortcut, but sorry about going off topic with the example.
Matt
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 5:05:19 PM UTC-6, matthe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Here's a specific example of how this works for me. I have a chess board
Here's a specific example of how this works for me. I have a chess board
represented as a 64 element array of points:
type Point struct {
*Piece // nil for no piece
AbsPoint
}
// Absolute Point represents a specific point on the board.
type AbsPoint struct {
File uint8
Rank uint8
}
type Piece
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:12:22 PM UTC-8, Dave Cheney wrote:
>
> It's true it is an exception, it's one of the few cases where the language
> adds a pinch of syntactic sugar to make the experience more pleasurable.
>
I'd describe this more as removing a pinch of syntactic sugar.
I ca
It's true it is an exception, it's one of the few cases where the language
adds a pinch of syntactic sugar to make the experience more pleasurable.
I can imagine without this the number one oft repeated feature request
would be to _not_ have to write (&t).m() all the time when you just wanted
t
* jlforr...@berkeley.edu [171217 15:33]:
> Here's what I believe is the explanation. The book says (slightly
> edited) "If the receiver p is a variable of type Path but the method
> requires a *Path receiver, we can use this shorthand:
>
> p.pr1()
>
> and the compiler will perform an implicit &p
