On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 9:43 AM Joshua <joshua.oconno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) I'm modelling a data type which has a field which may or may not be > there, would most Gophers reach for a pointer here, and use `nil' to > represent a missing value? That's the usual approach seen in the wild and IMO often the wrong one. Unless the size of the field's type is big, I'd suggest just a plain field and a boolean value that represents the "present/valid" information. Less GC pressure, improved cache locality. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAA40n-XGP2edWe1b13kpE4PhdFdCsJWGk79z8ngEpj19ycwmxQ%40mail.gmail.com.
