I occasionally run into this, but in my experience it's exclusively with
maps:
- Initializing empty slices is ~never necessary; (in my opinion the
"members: []int{}" from the blog post is a code smell).
- Channels need initialization but that's where the important buffered vs.
unbuffered choice is made, so I'm happy that's explicit. (I suppose you can
say the same about initializing maps with a size, but that's fairly rare in
my experience.)
- If the struct has a nested pointer to another struct type, then having
it be nil is definitely what you want since the nested type may or may not
have a valid zero value.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Devon H. O'Dell <devon.od...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's been some time since I really contributed much of anything to the
> project (sorry!), but after 8 years, I'm finally writing Go outside of
> the project itself (and outside of porting efforts). I was lamenting
> to some coworkers about the lack of a comparable feature to C's
> "malloc idiom" and they suggested I write an experience report on it.
> I wrote the bulk of the article a month ago, but finally put in some
> finishing touches and published.
>
> For whatever it's worth (probably not much):
> https://9vx.org/post/a-malloc-idiom-in-go/
>
> --dho
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
