It might indeed make more sense to fix the cyclic dependencies. I'm not
even sure
there will be any. I'm just trying to anticipate possible problems.
Thanks,
Jon
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 5:37:20 PM UTC-8 chri...@aperture.us wrote:
> Doesn't it make more sense to fix the cyclic
Doesn't it make more sense to fix the cyclic dependencies rather than hack
the go compiler and make it do something it wasn't designed to do?
Best regards,
Christian
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022, 4:44 PM jlfo...@berkeley.edu
wrote:
> The reason I'm asking this question is because, as a learning
The reason I'm asking this question is because, as a learning exercise, I'm
trying to
rewrite several large existing applications in Go. These have been around a
while
and have a very sensible source subdirectory layout, sometimes with
multiple levels of
subdirectories.
My initial approach was
Hi,
Are there any pure-go solver for mixed integer programming?
Specifically, I am looking for a replacement of SCIP solver in Google's
OR-tool.
Chris
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
You can also use the "gotip" command
(https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/dl/gotip) to pull the latest, unreleased
version from the Go development tree.
-Ben
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 2:24:12 AM UTC+13 Amnon wrote:
> Feb 2023 is a good bet.
>
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 10:24:07 UTC
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:31 AM Ayan George wrote:
>
> For me this is as much if not more of a communications issue than a technical
> one. It seems like the definition of what an OO language is broad enough
> that we could go on forever about if Go is one.
>
> The language developers can
On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 10:16 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:11 AM Robert Engels
> wrote:
> >
> > I do not know why the mailing list is set up as the sender is the
> > user. Is should always have the sender be the list email and the
> > name be the user, or the sender
Great points.
For me this is as much if not more of a communications issue than a
technical one. It seems like the definition of what an OO language is
broad enough that we could go on forever about if Go is one.
The language developers can also choose to declare what it is meant to be
Hi Go community,
We've released Google's style documentation for Go:
https://google.github.io/styleguide/go/.
These are the house rules that Google uses to write Go code internally.
The intention in publishing this is to help collaborators on Google open
source projects, and to provide a
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:11 AM Robert Engels wrote:
>
> I do not know why the mailing list is set up as the sender is the user. Is
> should always have the sender be the list email and the name be the user, or
> the sender details included elsewhere. I don’t have this problem in any other
>
Late binding means you don't need to know the types of your parameters *at
all* when you write a method call. If the language supported late binding,
then you would be able to define all your variables as Object and
*everything would continue to work*.
In Go you could define everything as
Both Java and Go require that a method be instantiated in the declared
interface of the type at compile time. This is contrary to the point of
late binding.
In the case of Go, this cannot be detected, because everything is built
together. But with Java, you cannot call a method on an object
I didn't say Java didn't have late binding, but that it didn't have late
binding of every possible type (the "all things" in Kay's quote).
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:25 AM Robert Engels
wrote:
> Why do you say that Java does not have late binding. It 100% does. In fact
> the JVM supports
The wiki page on late binding discusses the Java facilities in depth.
It also misses things like runtime proxy interfaces.
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 10:25 AM, Robert Engels wrote:
>
>
> Why do you say that Java does not have late binding. It 100% does. In fact
> the JVM supports dynamic
Why do you say that Java does not have late binding. It 100% does. In fact the
JVM supports dynamic dispatch to make this as efficient as possible. Then the
JIT optimizes it even more based on runtime behavior.
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 10:18 AM, Matt KØDVB wrote:
>
>
> But see
Hello Ian,
I have repeatedly asked this user to not use an email address that
spambots back for posting to this list - to no avail, unfortunately. I
think you are the moderator of this ML. I suggest banning posts from
.
Thanks for consideration.
To Robert (not CC'ing you for obvious reasons):
But see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(programming_language)
Self was considered an OO language back when I was a grad student and is
still listed that way today, even though it has neither classes nor
inheritance.
Anyway, my point would be that the term OO originates with Alan Kay and the
Asking "the definition of object oriented programming" seems a bad idea to
me. Alan Kay invented the term, and he was pretty clear that C++ was not
anything like what he had in mind, and yet, a lot of people think C++ is an
object oriented language. I don't, as it happens.
Inheritance used to be
The wiki OO page lists classes as a requirement - but not necessarily
inheritance. Class variables require classes.
Also, your link does not work.
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:56 AM, Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 4:43 PM Robert Engels wrote:
>
>> Go is not
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 4:43 PM Robert Engels wrote:
> Go is not listed as an OO language on Wikipedia.
Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language):
"ParadigmMulti-paradigm: concurrent imperative, object-oriented[1][2]"
> Personally I think it is OO-like. OO typically has
Also, there is an interesting point about OO languages made by Rob Pike (on the
wiki page) that would also imply that Go is not OO by design.
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:43 AM, Robert Engels wrote:
>
>
> Go is not listed as an OO language on Wikipedia.
>
> Personally I think it is OO-like. OO
Go is not listed as an OO language on Wikipedia.
Personally I think it is OO-like. OO typically has inheritance.
There are also no “class variables” - only package level - which makes some
encapsulation patterns harder (every class has to become a package).
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:06 AM,
The correct answer is actually “yes” because neither classes nor inheritance
are necessary or sufficient for “object-oriented” programming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jexEpE7Yv2A
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 22, 2022, at 9:02 AM, Ayan George wrote:
>
>
>
> The Go FAQ begins the answer
The Go FAQ begins the answer to the question, "Is Go an object-oriented
language," with, "yes and no."
https://go.dev/doc/faq#Is_Go_an_object-oriented_language
The section goes on to say that Go has methods but there is no type
hierarchy. I guess those are the yes and no.
But I feel like
Don't do it.
Don't fight the Go tools. Use them the way they are intended. They are your
friends.
Put all your package files in a single directory. Or break them up into
multiple packages.
That is the way everyone else write Go. If you follow the convention, your
life will be simpler,
and your
Feb 2023 is a good bet.
On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 10:24:07 UTC piotr.w...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is the date of the 1.20 release roughly known? I need some goodies it
> promises to provide.
>
> Best regards, Piotr
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Got it. I was wrong.
time.NewTicker would panic if duration is negative.
But if the duration is used widely in negative then fine :)
Thank you for correcting
On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 16:03:58 UTC+5:30 Volker Dobler wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 11:28:15 UTC+1
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 02:28:14 -0800 (PST)
Nikhilesh Susarla wrote:
> Hi,
>
> type Duration int64
>
> The current Duration is int64 and the duration value should never be
> less than 0 else it will panic. It would be safe and advisable to
> change it to uint64 or so, where at least it would not
On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 11:28:15 UTC+1 nikhil...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...] the duration value should never be less than 0 else it will panic
>
This statement is wrong, a negative time.Duration doesn't panic.
(Maybe you are talking about time.Sleep?)
Is there any reason for not using uint?
Hi,
type Duration int64
The current Duration is int64 and the duration value should never be less
than 0 else it will panic. It would be safe and advisable to change it to
uint64 or so, where at least it would not cause panic.
Is there any reason for not using uint?
Thank you
Susarla
Hi,
is the date of the 1.20 release roughly known? I need some goodies it
promises to provide.
Best regards, Piotr
--
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
