This discussion points out another nomenclature problem in the list. What the list refers to as a "Package comment" is actually a "Canonical import path" comment. See https://golang.org/doc/go1.4#canonicalimports
Package comments (as defined in this blog post: https://blog.golang.org/godoc-documenting-go-code) are for documenting a package, not restricting where it can be imported from. On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 1:24:44 PM UTC-4, Peter Bourgon wrote: > > I think it's cost without much benefit. By definition, if a package > exists on your filesystem, you know where it came from: you put it > there, and you can inspect the path. > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:19 PM, roger peppe <rogp...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On 1 August 2017 at 18:04, Peter Bourgon <pe...@bourgon.org > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Generally nice list. I find these items controversial i.e. shorthand > >> for I don't agree with them ;) > > [...] > >> - Use package comment > > > > This puzzles me. Why don't you think that having a package comment > > is a good idea? > > > > rog. > -- 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.
