I think the point is that by implementing Getter/Setter methods, which are trivially inline-able there's no real downside to skipping fields and just allowing method calls. If it makes it easier to unify contracts and interfaces, I think that may be a hit worth taking (though I still say, getters and setters are terribly idiomatic, and have been actively discouraged in the past. This will make them far more common, I'm not really sure that's a good thing.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 14:15 Mandolyte <cecil....@gmail.com> wrote: > On field accessors... > > - Algorithms for X,Y points requiring them to be members of a struct type. > > - Algorithms to manipulate colors, requiring R,G, and B to be members. > > In an image processing library with its own rich set of struct types, such > accessors would prove productive. > > Are these the kind of examples you meant? > > -- > 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.
