Yes indeed! These constructions all give us *expressions *with many
consecutive stars. But they don't give us *types *with that. (and you can't
assign a *Number to a **Number, for example)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 11:50 AM Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:41 PM Thomas Bushnell BSG
> <tbushn...@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Not in the normal implementation it doesn't. Typically it might be:
> >
> > type element struct {
> > value int
> > next *element
> > }
> >
> > next is a pointer to an element, not a pointer to a pointer. That
> element contains within it a pointer, but next is not a pointer to a
> pointer. If it were, it would be declared with two stars.
>
> Although linked lists usually do contain a payload, as you note, I
> consider `type peano *peano` a payload-less linked list. Or a linked
> list with zero sized payload one could also say. And once a node
> contains zero bits of a payload, it contains only the link field. And
> a struct with a single field is another interesting case that can be
> abstracted out. Numbers 0 and 1 make many things much more interesting
> ;-)
>
--
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/CA%2BYjuxuzz1tMi2vT0oUmyyE8YA9Q31x054pXf_zY0XHRsLjQsw%40mail.gmail.com.
