> On Jan 15, 2025, at 12:05 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 8:10 PM Mike Schinkel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> P.S. If I instead asked that all funcs in the standard library accepting >> strings be converted to use that generic signature, I assume that would be a >> non-starter for performance reasons, right? > > We couldn't change the standard library functions because it would > break compatibility. But I don't think there would be any performance > considerations.
When you say compatibility, what would be a use-case where existing code would break? Something related to using reflection that expect the exact signature? -Mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/F14FA20A-5EAE-42A6-AA1E-318CC39D2909%40newclarity.net.
