> How about just a 'container' type for the interface. >> >> https://play.golang.org/p/WSXVjVHj1Ya >> > >> For what I need, that does the job nicely. The type being stored in the >> atomic.Value isn't changing so it satisfies the atomic.Value constraints >> but I have the flexibility of the contained type being able to change. Any >> pitfalls with this? >> > > No, that should work fine. Though I'm not sure about "just", it requires > an extra type but leads to exactly the same memory layout and everything. > But yeah, if you prefer that, it's completely fine. >
I'm happy with it. It feels reasonably clean and there are no special conditions. Although I should refactor the code so that I don't need atomics at all and communicate over channels. But this just happens to be how the code has developed. Thanks for the help. -- 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/e58cb004-423a-4d8c-a652-c43eb6556723n%40googlegroups.com.
