On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:40 AM bobj...@gmail.com <bobja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For the case of multiple variable assignment where some of the target
> variables are to be created in the local scope and some are to be found in
> the existing scope...
>
> Allow:
>
> existingVar, :newVar = 1, 2
>
> instead of:
>
> var newVar int
> existingVar, newVar = 1, 2
>
> That additional line for explicit local var declaration clutters the program
> and could even be a bit confusing.
>
> With this suggestion, current syntax and semantics of multiple assignment
> stay the same. Use of the more concise syntax is optional, of course.
>
> Advantages:
> - More readable
> - More concise
> - Easier to understand at a glance -- current rules are a tad complex and
> require knowledge of previously-declared variables in the current block
> - Does not break existing programs
> - I look at this as "factoring out" the colon :)
>
> Disadvantages:
> - Can't think of any
>
> For me, the most common use case is where the first variable exists outside
> of the enclosing block and the second is an error to be handled locally:
>
> var err error
> loopCount, err = strconv.Atoi(arg)
> if err != nil {
> ...
>
> Always bothers me to have to insert that "err" declaration. To me, this seems
> much nicer:
>
> loopCount, :err = strconv.Atoi(arg)
> if err != nil {
> ...
>
> I think the above is a worthwhile improvement and should be considered.
>
> Thoughts?
There is a fair amount of discussion about this and other possible
approaches at https://golang.org/issue/377.
Ian
--
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/CAOyqgcVjucHT-cY1UoNXVE2u6L0CQGCzD8bno82-DZ0i7sddgg%40mail.gmail.com.
