| > That's a distinction without a difference. `append` does not "explicitly reallocate", it may or may not reallocate, you've no idea. Even if the backing array is full, it might be realloc'd in-place. Maybe to you, but to me, a pointer going from modifying the value inside of the map to no longer modifying the value inside of the map during any operation is quite a bit different than requiring a reassignment of the slice header. In other words: x := make([]int, 5)
y := &x[0]
x[3] = 8
*y = 5
print(x[0]) // always prints 5
as compared to x := make(map[int]int)
y = &x[0] // btw, is this even valid? let's assume it implicitly does x[0] = 0
x[3] = 8
*y = 5
print(x[0]) // maybe sometimes prints 5?
is meaningfully different. For slices, we know that x[0] will always print 5 until the value of x is reassigned in some way.> Also technically nothing prevents a GC from reallocating the slice. It would have the same problem the map does: you'd have to update any pointers into the slice to point to the new slice, otherwise the semantics of the program changes. That is not something the GC currently does, and would require an awful lot of metadata and scanning. > I've never heard of a hashmap implementation which would do otherwise. I'm not sure what this is referring to. I agree every map implementation has to reallocate the backing store of values periodically. I was trying to say that keeping the flexibility to reallocate the backing store of the map during GC means that you cannot choose the "writes through pointer are observed in the map" option (at least without a lot of complication around updating pointers) because as a programmer, you would not be able to know if it would do that or not, which is a fairly useless primitive. |
Yes, I avoid making assumptions about invariants across mutation calls, that's just a bad idea.
> For slices, we know that x[0] will always print 5 until the value of x is reassigned in some way.
Unless an other goroutine is stomping on your backing array anyway.
> It would have the same problem the map does: you'd have to update any pointers into the slice to point to the new slice, otherwise the semantics of the program changes. That is not something the GC currently does, and would require an awful lot of metadata and scanning.
Yes. So maybe we could ignore that useless strawman?
> I'm not sure what this is referring to.
To what I'm quoting.
> I was trying to say that keeping the flexibility to reallocate the backing store of the map during GC
That sounds less like flexibility and more like "let's make the GC slower and more complex for no reason".