On 26 Feb 2018, at 18:21, "d...@veryhaha.com<mailto:d...@veryhaha.com>" <d...@veryhaha.com<mailto:d...@veryhaha.com>> wrote:
On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 11:48:36 AM UTC-5, Jakob Borg wrote: On 26 Feb 2018, at 16:38, di...@veryhaha.com wrote: Will the "sync/atomic" package get broken? This atomic package imports unsafe. If changes to unsafe break sync/atomic it’s up to the Go team to fix sync/atomic before releasing. Much like it’s up to other package authors to make sure their packages work when unsafe changes, if they depend on package unsafe. You can depend on sync/atomic working. Show Quoted Content On 26 Feb 2018, at 16:38, di...@veryhaha.com wrote: Will the "sync/atomic" package get broken? This atomic package imports unsafe. If changes to unsafe break sync/atomic it’s up to the Go team to fix sync/atomic before releasing. Much like it’s up to other package authors to make sure their packages work when unsafe changes, if they depend on package unsafe. You can depend on sync/atomic working. On 26 Feb 2018, at 16:38, di...@veryhaha.com wrote: Will the "sync/atomic" package get broken? This atomic package imports unsafe. If changes to unsafe break sync/atomic it’s up to the Go team to fix sync/atomic before releasing. Much like it’s up to other package authors to make sure their packages work when unsafe changes, if they depend on package unsafe. You can depend on sync/atomic working. I mean whether or not the prototypes of the pointer functions in the atomic packages will change? I think it's a safe bet that unsafe.Pointer will continue to exist. //jb -- 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.
