On 4 May 2017 at 03:52, T L <tapir....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 1:21:52 AM UTC+8, Axel Wagner wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:04 PM, T L <tapi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:46:47 AM UTC+8, Axel Wagner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> but
>>>> const (
>>>> a = iota
>>>> b
>>>> s string
>>>> d
>>>> )
>>>> is not a valid declaration. You can't say "the rule is the same for
>>>> constants".
>>>
>>>
>>> For the same rule, I mean just copying the corresponding part from last
>>> line.
>>> Yes, declared constant must be assigned. This is an unrelated rule for
>>> this topic.
>>
>>
>> No, it is not an unrelated rule. Because it means that "just like for
>> consts" isn't an argument. You need, at the very least, answer the valid
>> question ("what happens with that var-declaration and why?") raised about
>> your proposal. Or better yet, realize that var and const declarations behave
>> very differently and thus "consistency" isn't an argument to add something
>> otherwise useless.
>>
>
> ok, I admit the rule difference between variable and constant declaration
> does matter:
>
> var (
> a int = iota
> b // should autocomplete
> c int // but this? "c int" is already legal.
> )
I don't think I've ever come across a case where I want to assign
increasing-by-one values to adjacent variables. Have you?
--
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
