If you use interface based design it is repeated through out the code with no
way to write a performant generic method.
I am not a big fan of ‘reduced lines of code’ creating obscurity the hallmark
of Go.
In this case I think being able to pass a slice as an read only [] of interface
makes MORE sense - since if the slice was not read only, in your case you need
to add another 3 lines to copy the slice back… (and you might even need to do
some merge/replace code) so a minimum of 6 lines for every method call
(although if the calls were all of the same interface type, you would only have
3 at the front and 3 at the end).
It is not a good coding style IMO, and fixing it would be backwards compatible
and trivial. Sorry but we’ll probably disagree here.
> On Oct 31, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Space A. <reexist...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's already trivial 3 lines o code. Readable, light, and simple.
>
> And it's a question tbh, if topic starter even needs that code, or just a bad
> implementation.
>
>
> среда, 31 октября 2018 г., 18:47:37 UTC+3 пользователь Jake Montgomery
> написал:
> It is highly likely that when go2 comes out, with generics, it will be
> trivial to write a ToInterfaceSlice() function that takes a slice of any type
> T and returns a []interface{}.
>
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <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.
