Yes, sorry. Eight years of habit is hard to break. I think I agree with you; a small bit of text in https://golang.org/ref/spec#Type_definitions linking to https://golang.org/ref/spec#Predeclared_identifiers and saying that there exist already defined types may ease this, or the suggestion you have of making the word "defined" linked to defined types in https://golang.org/ref/spec#Errors (or both).
On Sat, 2020-05-09 at 18:49 +0200, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts wrote: > I don't know why you are talking about "named type". The nomenclature > is outdated and obsoleted by "defined type". The only reason I see to > still use it is so you can make an argument that "it has a name" > means "it's a defined type" - which isn't even a correct argument > anymore since type aliases can give non-defined types names. That's > the entire reason the term was abandoned. > The section you point to *is* however still relevant - that's why I > quoted it myself in my first message. It *does* contain one > definition of what a "defined type" is, by saying that a type > definition creates one. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/c6a3e2fecd9487dbde0bb75b92841a756e7c5c8d.camel%40kortschak.io.
