Indeed. The concern here is unfounded. The original question was “why does it break?” and the answer is “because you used dangerous tools in a disallowed way.”
That answer was not acknowledged; the subject was changed to “how can I trust anything that uses dangerous tools?” This time the answer is “(1) because they have been used carefully and properly with careful test code, and (2) because the Go 1 compatibility promise is your guarantee.” Implicit in 1 and 2 is that there is no problem. The implementation is careful and visible things will not disappear or otherwise break valid code. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:36 AM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:17 AM <d...@veryhaha.com> wrote: > > > ok, this is really make gophers worry about whether or not the pointer > atomic functions should be used. > > What to worry about? Under the Go 1 compatibility promise, the sync/atomic > package is going nowhere, IIUC. > > -- > > -j > > -- > 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. > -- Michael T. Jones michael.jo...@gmail.com -- 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.
