Comment by terminalbraid
1 day ago
If you're fine with that then you should be upset by the subsequent example, because by your own definition "that's just not the way slices work".
1 day ago
If you're fine with that then you should be upset by the subsequent example, because by your own definition "that's just not the way slices work".
I am fine with the subsequent example, too. If you read up about slices, then that's how they are defined and how they work. I am not judging, I am just using the language as it is presented to me.
For anyone interested, this article explains the fundamentals very well, imo: https://go.dev/blog/slices-intro
Then you seem to be fine with inconsistent ownership and a behavioral dependence on the underlying data rather than the structure.
You really don't see why people would point a definition that changes underneath you out as a bad definition? They're not arguing the documentation is wrong.
The definition is perfectly consistent. append is in-place if there's enough capacity (and the programmer can check this directly with cap() if they want), and otherwise it allocates a new backing array.
1 reply →