No that is exactly what I meant. I would never use it, as it seems like
obfuscation, but there are those who like to be clever.
On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:36:56 PM UTC-4 Rob 'Commander' Pike wrote:
> That creates a slice 101 integers long, which probably isn't what you
> meant, which might
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 7:06 AM Vaibhav Maurya wrote:
> I appreciate the whole discussion, it was really insightful. Since Golang is
> not my first language, I had a preconceived notion about key-value pair
> initialization.
> Here I would like to disagree with the syntax, it would be good
FWIW I don't believe I ever saw key-value initialization of arrays or
slices in the wild.
Not saying *no one* uses it, but it's certainly rare enough that I wouldn't
worry about getting confused by it in practice.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 7:07 AM Vaibhav Maurya
wrote:
>
> I appreciate the whole
I appreciate the whole discussion, it was really insightful. Since Golang
is not my first language, I had a preconceived notion about key-value pair
initialization.
Here I would like to disagree with the syntax, it would be good that with
the innovation in the language, the general idea of an
That creates a slice 101 integers long, which probably isn't what you
meant, which might help explain why you never came across it before.
Smile.
-rob
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 7:07 AM jake...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I'm surprised that I have never come across this as a way to create a
> slice with
I'm surprised that I have never come across this as a way to create a slice
with an initial length:
x := []int{100:0}
On Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:43:17 PM UTC-4 axel.wa...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Oh and also:
>
> Likewise, I think this only works for array literals; I don’t think
>>
If you are familiar with C99’s designated initializers, this is similar but
less general
and less confusing.
> On Jun 22, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Vaibhav Maurya wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please help me to understand the following syntax mentioned in the Golang
> language specification document.
>
>
On Jun 22, 2021, at 12:42, Axel Wagner wrote:
>
>
> Oh and also:
>
>> Likewise, I think this only works for array literals; I don’t think (though
>> again have not tried it) that you can declare slice literals with only
>> selected members initialized.
>
> Works fine too:
Oh and also:
Likewise, I think this only works for array literals; I don’t think (though
> again have not tried it) that you can declare slice literals with only
> selected members initialized.
Works fine too: https://play.golang.org/p/ANw54ShkTvY :)
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 6:41 PM Axel Wagner
>
> (I assume with a runtime rather than a compiler error, but I haven’t tried
> it)
Nope, compiler catches the overflow: https://play.golang.org/p/taorqygqxFz
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 6:39 PM David Riley wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2021, at 11:39, Vaibhav Maurya wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Please help me
On Jun 22, 2021, at 11:39, Vaibhav Maurya wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please help me to understand the following syntax mentioned in the Golang
> language specification document.
>
> https://golang.org/ref/spec#Composite_literals
>
> following is the search string for CTRL + F
> // vowels[ch] is
It's in the section you link to:
The key is interpreted as a field name for struct literals*, an index for
> array and slice literals*, and a key for map literals.
(emphasis mine). The syntax allows you to specify keys for arrays and
slices and interprets them as indices. Rune-literals (like
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 5:40 PM Vaibhav Maurya wrote:
> https://golang.org/ref/spec#Composite_literals
>
> following is the search string for CTRL + F
> // vowels[ch] is true if ch is a vowel \
>
> Following declaration and initialization is confusing.
> vowels := [128]bool{'a': true, 'e': true,
Hi,
Please help me to understand the following syntax mentioned in the Golang
language specification document.
https://golang.org/ref/spec#Composite_literals
following is the search string for CTRL + F
// vowels[ch] is true if ch is a vowel \
Following declaration and initialization is
14 matches
Mail list logo
