Comment by thomashabets2
1 day ago
> why would assigning a local variable be expected to change the value in the caller?
I think you may need to re-read. My point is that it DOES change the value in the caller. (well, sometimes) That's the problem.
1 day ago
> why would assigning a local variable be expected to change the value in the caller?
I think you may need to re-read. My point is that it DOES change the value in the caller. (well, sometimes) That's the problem.
Oh, I see. I mean, yeah, the relationships between slices and arrays is somewhat subtle; but it buys you some power as well. I came to golang after decades of C, so I didn't have much trouble with the concept.
I'm afraid I can only consider that a taste thing.
EDIT: One thing I don't consider a taste thing is the lack of the equivalent of a "const *". The problem with the slice thing is that you can sort of sometimes change things but not really. It would be nice if you could be forced to pass either a pointer to a slice (such that you can actually allocate a new backing array and point to it), or a non-modifiable slice (such that you know the function isn't going to change the slice behind your back).