|
|
|
|
|
by errnoh
849 days ago
|
|
Ah, my bad for not reading the article before the comments :) As that's the case it's indeed hard to defend it. Data structure-wise it still kind of makes sense since as you mentioned the slice metadata is changed, but it basically making the old slice invalid is rather annoying. For the := example sure, it's a bit far fetched example and likely would not pass any code review, but there are cases where shadowing is indeed valid. So is the `s := slices.Compact(s)` in this example not working as expected then? EDIT: looking at another reply to the parent the := being broken likely is trying to point that using := also modifies the slice and thus the original slice is broken when one tries to use it in the original scope. That's really bad practice, but true indeed. |
|