On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 4:05:06 PM UTC+8, rog wrote:
>
> On 4 May 2017 at 03:52, T L <tapi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 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?
>
I never used iota for declaring constants too, :)
--
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.
