> I know I can use "chan struct{}" to avoid any storage, but I think "<- true" looks nicer than "<- struct{} {}". I disagree. struct{}{} tells me that the valu

> I know I can use "chan struct{}" to avoid any storage, but I think "<- true" looks nicer than "<- struct{} {}". I disagree. struct{}{} tells me that the value isn't important. Whenever I use map as a set, rather than a key-value store I use map[string]struct{} (say), rather than map[string]bool. Then I am forced to use the double assignment to check for membership of the set. And that's exactly what I want. I'm able to make my intent more obvious in the code I write. No one will ever look at it and say "but what if it's false?" - I dislike using booleans instead of empty structs in the same way I dislike other C programmers using integers as booleans.