It doesn't have anything to do with implementation details, even though the weir... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		slrz on Sept 8, 2018 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Go says Wat It doesn't have anything to do with implementation details, even though the weird set of rules from the article implies that. Dump those rules for a much simpler insight: When comparing interfaces, type and value must match to compare equal. So, (nil, nil) compares NE to (*myFancyErrorType, nil) for the same reason that (float64, 0) and (uint16, 0) do. It isn't all that complicated. I don't see a real and non-insane alternative to it. Do you?

Groxx on Sept 9, 2018 [–]

Sure there is. Do what the vast majority of other languages do - don't bundle behavior and nil like this. Or even better, make nullability a proper first-class citizen so this nonsense can be prevented at compile time.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact