http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1912728
Andrei
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:10:54 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1912728
Andrei
"I like go because every single feature go has is the best ever!"
yawn...
-Steve
On 11/16/10 9:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:10:54 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1912728
Andrei
"I like go because every single feature go has is the best ever!"
yawn...
-Steve
I'm curious what the response to my example
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:24:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 11/16/10 9:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:10:54 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1912728
Andrei
"I like go because every single feature go has is the best e
On 11/16/10 9:58 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:24:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 11/16/10 9:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:10:54 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1912728
Andrei
"I like go b
On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
> that doesn't even address it.
I really don't see the problem with requiring that '{' goes on the same
line as 'if'. It's something you learn once and never forget because it
i
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 22:55:42 Rainer Deyke wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
> > that doesn't even address it.
>
> I really don't see the problem with requiring that '{' goes on the same
> line
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:58:28 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:24:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/10 9:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:10:54 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>> wrote:
>>>
http://news.ycombinator.com/it
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:55:42 -0700, Rainer Deyke wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
>> that doesn't even address it.
>
> I really don't see the problem with requiring that '{' goes on the same
> line as
On 11/17/10 12:00 AM, Jay Byrd wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:55:42 -0700, Rainer Deyke wrote:
On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
that doesn't even address it.
I really don't see the problem with requiring that
It *isn't* required. But if you don't put it there, *you get the wrong
result*.
You didn't mean that, did you?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
The problem pointed out can readily be fixed by requiring statements to
have at least one token. go has much more severe problems than that. And
there are plenty of bugs and mistakes in D, harder to fix, that could be
deemed "deal-killers" by someone with an axe to grind. It's not an
intellectuall
It *isn't* required. But if you don't put it there, *you get the wrong
result*.
You didn't mean that, did you?
Oh you did! and i agree.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Rainer Deyke schrieb:
On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
that doesn't even address it.
I really don't see the problem with requiring that '{' goes on the same
line as 'if'. It's something you learn once and nev
Daniel Gibson schrieb:
Rainer Deyke schrieb:
On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one
that doesn't even address it.
I really don't see the problem with requiring that '{' goes on the same
line as 'if'. It's somethin
> That one point you made would be a
> deal-killer for me (not that I'm close to using Go or anything, but no
> need to invest any more time on it after that).
That was a good point and it's a deal-killer for me too.
It's too much similar to the Javascript object literal syntax
http://stackove
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:56:09 -0500, Jay Byrd wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:58:28 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:24:50 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 11/16/10 9:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:10:54 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrot
Am 17.11.2010 14:55, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
Being someone who likes the "brace-on-its-own-line" style
i++
greets
Matthias
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:ic03ui$gj...@digitalmars.com...
> On 11/17/10 12:00 AM, Jay Byrd wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:55:42 -0700, Rainer Deyke wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I
Nick Sabalausky:
>Sad as it may be, most people, and worse still, most programmers, have no
>qualms about "safety by convention".<
This is an interesting topic, there is a lot to say about it. Bugs and errors
have many sources, and you need to balance different and sometimes opposed
needs to m
On 11/17/2010 03:26, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Rainer Deyke schrieb:
>> Let's say I see something like this in C/C++/D:
>>
>> if(blah())
>> {
>> x++;
>> }
>>
>> This is not my usual style, so I have to stop and think.
>
> What about
> if( (blah() || foo()) && (x > 42)
> && (baz.iDontKnowHowto
Matthias Pleh wrote:
Am 17.11.2010 14:55, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
Being someone who likes the "brace-on-its-own-line" style
i++
Surely you mean:
i
++
;
--
Simen
On 17/11/2010 06:55, Rainer Deyke wrote:
There are huge problems with Go that will probably keep me from ever
using the language. This isn't one of them.
I have to agree. The issue itself is a fairly minor one. For starters
because it is trivial to fix: if this ever becomes a more important
23 matches
Mail list logo
