On 09/28/2018 03:18 PM, Tamás Gulácsi wrote: > > This is not that. > My idea could maybe be restated simpler as having a huge double-linked > list of sync.Pool objects and using wanting to supplement it by a map > index, but avoiding storing pointers in the map. > > > There's no such thing as a "list of sync.Pool objects" (if you refer the > objects, not the pool(s)), > as anything you've Put into the pool should NOT be referenced, and may > disappear anytime.
You misunderstood what I meant. > So they sould be either in your map, or in the sync.Pool. Yeah... That's what's been described the whole time. > sync.Pool is just to amortize the creation/deletion cost of objects, > nothing more. I know /Peter -- 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.
