Hrm. I think you're going to want to be passing around pointers of this
thing anyway. Otherwise, you'll effectively have copies of the thing
running around, all being protected by the same Mutex. Like
so: http://play.golang.org/p/VvKXDXr5eQ
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:35:12 PM UTC-7, Gbr wrote:

No, unfortunately. If you make sync.Mutex a direct embedded field (as
opposed to a pointer field), you loose implementation of Y -- sync.Locker
requires a pointer receiver.
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:24:39 PM UTC-7, James Aguilar wrote:

type X struct {
Value int

If I understand you correctly, you want to avoid having to type out the
"new" for the mutex each time you use the type literal. This should work,
shouldn't it?
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 golang-nuts+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 4 of 19 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupgolang-nuts @
postedAug 27, '15 at 10:48p
activeAug 29, '15 at 1:56a



site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase