Comment by 813ac4312b25c

Comment by 813ac4312b25c 2 days ago

I am fine with the subsequent example, too. If you read up about slices, then that's how they are defined and how they work. I am not judging, I am just using the language as it is presented to me.

For anyone interested, this article explains the fundamentals very well, imo: https://go.dev/blog/slices-intro

terminalbraid 2 days ago

Then you seem to be fine with inconsistent ownership and a behavioral dependence on the underlying data rather than the structure.

You really don't see why people would point a definition that changes underneath you out as a bad definition? They're not arguing the documentation is wrong.

Reply View 2 replies

assbuttbuttass 2 days ago

The definition is perfectly consistent. append is in-place if there's enough capacity (and the programmer can check this directly with cap() if they want), and otherwise it allocates a new backing array.

Reply View | 1 reply
- terminalbraid 2 days ago
  
  Yes, it's consistent and complicated and non-intuitive.
  "Consistent" is necessary but not sufficient for "good".
  
  Reply View | 0 replies