On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 12:44, peterGo wrote:
> Remember the Vasa! http://www.stroustrup.com/P0977-remember-the-vasa.pdf
>
That note from Stroustroup is profound. Thanks for sharing. Personally, I'm
glad that we have a language where the philosophy is "What is the minimum
feature-set which allows
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:43 PM Mark Volkmann
wrote:
> I’m new to Go and I imagine the idea of adding a ternary operator to Go
> has been discussed many times. Rather than repeat that, can someone point
> me to a discussion about why Go doesn’t add this? I’m struggling to
> understand why it is d
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 05:43:07 -0500
Mark Volkmann wrote:
> I’m new to Go and I imagine the idea of adding a ternary operator to Go has
> been discussed many times. Rather than repeat that, can someone point me to
> a discussion about why Go doesn’t add this?
> I’m struggling to understand why it
>
> The first is ternaries. What if only simple, non-nested ternaries were
> supported? For example, color := temperature > 100 ? “red” : “blue”. This
> seems so much more clear than the map[bool]:string trick that some have
> proposed. Writing this with an if statement takes either 4 or 6 line
Mark,
Funny that -- you suggest that adding another syntax for the same behaviour
"might help with adoption".
I think the opposite is true.
My friend has been learning iOS development and has found many things
confusing. There is the lambda syntax in Swift, and then the trailing
lambda synta
On Wednesday, 15 August 2018 13:23:36 UTC+2, Mark Volkmann wrote:
>
> [...]
> The first is ternaries. What if only simple, non-nested ternaries were
> supported? For example, color := temperature > 100 ? “red” : “blue”.
>
It is easy to write "non-nested" but it is hard to define.
Probably a?(b?c
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:23 PM Mark Volkmann
wrote:
> I understand that many requests for syntax additions are rejected on two
> grounds.
Really though, the reaction always happens on the same grounds: It is not
shown that the benefit outweighs the cost. You mention the cost in your
mess
Mark,
"Adding just a few things like these to the language might help with
adoption and that in itself is a worthwhile goal. I suspect many developers
that love Go aren’t currently using it on real projects. Getting more
developers to consider Go makes that more likely."
There are several fall
I realize I’m just another new person to Go asking for features that have been
discussed many times before and that are very unlikely to be changed. But I’d
like to consider a kind of middle ground that applies to many potential
features.
I understand that many requests for syntax additions are
There is lots of discussion findable here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/golang-nuts/ternary%7Csort:date
There's a bit of discussion on the issue tracker:
https://github.com/golang/go/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=ternary+operator -- in
particular https://github.com/golang/go/issues/23248
Th
I’m new to Go and I imagine the idea of adding a ternary operator to Go has
been discussed many times. Rather than repeat that, can someone point me to a
discussion about why Go doesn’t add this? I’m struggling to understand why it
is desirable to write code like this:
var color
if temperature
11 matches
Mail list logo
