4 ms·
> It’s opt-in like generics, so I don’t see why it would be controversial to anyone? It "breaks" the language in fundamental ways — much more fundamental than
by masklinn 1y ago
> It’s opt-in like generics, so I don’t see why it would be controversial to anyone?
It "breaks" the language in fundamental ways — much more fundamental than syntactic sugar for error handling — by making zero values and thus zero initialisation invalid.
You even get this as a fun interaction with generics:
func Zero[T any]() T {
var v T
return v
}
- danenania 1y agoI don’t see how it breaks anything if it’s opt-in. By default you get the current behavior with zero value initialization if that’s what you want (and in many cases it is). But if you’d rather force an explicit value to be supplied, what’s the harm?
- masklinn 1y ago> I don’t see how it breaks anything if it’s opt-in? Zero values are a fundamental, non-optional, "feature" of Go. > But if you’d rather force an explicit value to be supplied, what’s the harm? What happens if you use the function above with your type? Or reflect.Zero?
- danenania 1y agoIf it would only complain on struct literals that are missing the value (and force a nil check before access if the zero value is nil to prevent panics), that would be enough for me. In that case, your Zero function and reflect.Zero can keep working as-is.