That would break backwards compatibility, though. And it would be a
re-definition (i.e. existing code would compile, but behave differently at
runtime) and is hence not allowed even under the Go 2 transition rules.
I'm also not sure you can exclude *all* pointers to zero-sized variables.
Note that
> let's consider the two possible definitions:
>
> 1. Pointers to distinct zero-size variables are equal: [...]
> 2. Pointers to distinct zero-size variables are not equal:
Another possibility:
3. Equality comparisons between pointers to zero-size variables are
forbidden at compile time.
3a. If
I think the surprising part is that the comparison result can change for the
same values because of the assumption that pointers never change. This is
implied by the spec but easy to miss.
"Pointers to distinct zero-size variables may or may not be equal."
"Pointers to distinct zero-size
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 8:19 PM Marvin Renich wrote:
> Prior to generics, the type of the
> arguments to == were easily known to the programmer, and so it was
> obvious when this "undefined" exception would raise its ugly head, and
> you just didn't use it for empty struct types. But now, with
* Kurtis Rader [240227 03:10]:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:52 PM tapi...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 3:42:25 PM UTC+8 Jan Mercl wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:20 AM tapi...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From common sense, this is an obvious bug. But
Howdy,
I've been trying to determine if there is a mapping between the protobuf
releases and the protobuf-go releases, without success. Specifically, I'd
like to know if there is a requirement for a minimum protoc version to use
for a given protoc-gen-go version.
Thanks!
Tricia
--
You
What's the reason for these 2 command to behave differently regarding
producing binaries?
Serious question for additional points: produce a string to search for
./... on the web, in gmail or on github. Afaict ellipsis won't help
here.
thanks!
--
You received this message because you are
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:52 PM tapi...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 3:42:25 PM UTC+8 Jan Mercl wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:20 AM tapi...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > From common sense, this is an obvious bug. But the spec is indeed not
> clear enough.
> > It
