3 ms·
Go Proposal: New(expr)
- Joker_vD 1y agoHonestly, never quite understood the argument against &42, &int64(42), &true, etc. that those have "unintuitive semantics": after all, taking address of compound literals e.g. &Point{X: 42, Y: -34} has been around since Go 1.0 and nobody found those to be confusing, why taking address of primitive literals would be? Oh well.
- ngrilly 1y ago&42 would not work because constants don’t have a type. But &int64(42) could.