Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generics and parentheses

It is a serious suggestion. Our editors are flexible enough to allow us to use control keys to generate these characters. Our ethnocentric, ASCII limited view of programming languages would benefit from more flexibility when it increases readability. Jon Jon Conradt —— j

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generics and parentheses

In the spirit of “show me, don’t tell me” and experience reports. How hard would it be to release a beta which supports both [] and guillamets? We try them. We see where we have compatibility problems. We give editor writers and plugin writers a chance to simplify they keystrokes? Jon On Tuesd

Re: [go-nuts] Generics: More on parens

Ian, I like the direction being taken on Generics, and I am thankful the Go Team did not rush into an implementation. I'm not a huge fan of another set of ()'s and I agree with not wanting the overhead of overloading <>. That got me thinking that we are in the 21st century. We all use editors w

[go-nuts] Re: SIGILL running 1.14 on macOS

You can follow the progress toward 1.14.1 via https://github.com/golang/go/milestone/137 Looking at 1.13.0 and 1.12.0 it looks like the time between a .0 release and a .0 release is about three weeks. So I'm hoping for a St. Patrick's Day releases of 1.14.1 Jon -- You received this message b

[go-nuts] Re: SIGILL running 1.14 on macOS

I am looking forward to 1.14.1, this ruined my Saturday. :( -- 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

Re: [go-nuts] Fuchsia Programming Language Policy

:45:34 PM UTC-8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:22 AM Jon Conradt > wrote: > > > > The Fuchsia Programming Language Policy gives some insight into the > experience the Fuchsia team has had with Go, and it doesn't sound good. > > > &

[go-nuts] Fuchsia Programming Language Policy

The Fuchsia Programming Language Policy gives some insight into the experience the Fuchsia team has had with Go, and it doesn't sound good. "The Fuchsia Platform Source Tree has had n

[go-nuts] Re: Experience report on a large Python-to-Go translation

While names arguments like foo(x= 1.0, y = 23) may look like syntactic sugar, I think you are right that they improve readability, especially of long argument lists. The counter argument I suppose if that you could pass structs around, but that gets ugly fast. Thinking about how this would be

[go-nuts] Re: Go for Data Science

There is also https://github.com/containous/yaegi described as: Yaegi is Another Elegant Go Interpreter. It powers executable Go scripts and plugins, in embedded interpreters or interactive shells, on top of the Go runtime.

Re: [go-nuts] About the Google logo on the new Go website

>From my perspective, Google's momentum with Go is to share it more broadly and generously with an ever larger growing community of contributors. I personally don't mind the tiny logo at the bottom right of the page. However, everyone who feels like you should feel welcome to fork the project.

Re: [go-nuts] Re: The "leave "if err != nil" alone?" anti-proposal

I have been following the various proposals for changing error handling in Go since the beginning. Recently I've decided I probably would not use them and I would stick with the explicit error checking. While verbose and repetitive, in my opinion it is the easiest to read and understand. I've b

[go-nuts] Re: A suggestion for the error handling proposal

I got a 404 when I tried to access this. Perhaps it is not public? Jon On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 10:33:38 AM UTC-4, Burak Serdar wrote: > > I read the error handling proposal recently, and although I like it in > general, I don't like the fact that it hides the actual error > variables fro

[go-nuts] Re: Generics as builtin typeclasses

Why: func Sum(type T numeric)(x []T) T { and not just func Sum(x []T type numeric) T { or func Sum(x []T Numeric) T { Jon On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:57:02 AM UTC-7, Matt Sherman wrote: > > Here’s a riff on generics focused on builtin typeclasses (instead of user > contracts): h

Re: [go-nuts] Re: [urgent] need aguments to justify use of Go for a scientific application

Would you share the document? It likely would save time for others when they have similar tasks. Jon On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 4:27:04 PM UTC-8, Christophe Meessen wrote: > > Thank you all for your help. > > I assembled a sort document with the collected arguments (thanks > Sebastien