Three Months of Go from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)

Re:Three Months of Go from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016) by lmm on Wednesday November 04, 2020 @02:32AM (#24987051)

> The problem with "Make it an error to not initialise a struct field" is you lose source compatibility when adding new struct fields.

If you allow the struct definition to specify a default value then the struct author can set default in the cases where there is a sensible default, and leave it compile-time incompatible in the cases where there really is no good default and the person doing the upgrade needs to make a decision.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Three Months of Go from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016) by Cthulhu_ on Wednesday November 04, 2020 @07:42AM (#24988472)

That is already possible by exposing a `New` function and making the struct itself unexposed; are you suggesting syntax should be added to provide default values to struct fields? Because there is high resistance (which I agree with btw) to adding additional syntax and constructs to the language.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Three Months of Go from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016) by lmm on Wednesday November 04, 2020 @08:22PM (#24994815)

> That is already possible by exposing a `New` function and making the struct itself unexposed;

I thought Go didn't allow functions with default argument values either?

[ Parent | on HN ]