Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

spec: ambiguity in comparing array/structs with interface fields/elements #8606

mdempsky opened this issue Aug 28, 2014 · 2 comments


Copy link

commented Aug 28, 2014

gc handles struct/array comparisons by short-circuiting if it finds any unequal
fields/elements, and this behavior is noticeable because the Go spec requires
comparisons to panic in some cases; e.g., see

However, unlike short-circuiting for evaluating "a && b", it doesn't
seem that short-circuiting of field/element comparisons is specified by the spec. 
Arguably, the spec currently requires that instead both comparisons in the above program
should panic.

Not a major issue, but thought I'd file an issue to note it.  A couple possible ways to
address it:

1. Ignore it since it probably doesn't matter in practice.
2. Specify gc's behavior since it's intuitive and easy to explain.
3. Specify a set of allowable behaviors (e.g., allow short-circuiting or not; and/or
allow any particular ordering for element/field comparisons).
4. Change gc to not (visibly) short-circuit comparisons that involve comparing interface
types; e.g., comparing two [512]int arrays can still short-circuit, but comparing two
struct{a int; b, c interface{}; d int} structs would need to always compare the b and c
fields, and a and d could be compared conditionally.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 28, 2014

Comment 1:

Labels changed: added repo-main, release-none.


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 28, 2014

Comment 2:

Labels changed: added documentation.

Owner changed to @griesemer.

Status changed to Accepted.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.