Wrong article, one stylistic point that bothers someone (but not me).
LGTM=bradfitz
R=golang-codereviews, bradfitz
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/156680043
The compatibility guideline needs to be clear about this even
though it means adding a clause that was not there from the
beginning. It has always been understood, so this isn't really
a change in policy, just in its expression.
LGTM=bradfitz, gri, rsc
R=golang-codereviews, bradfitz, gri, rsc
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/162060043
Per suggestion from rsc as a result of the dicussion of
(abandoned) CL 153110044.
Fixes#7192.
LGTM=r, rsc, iant
R=r, rsc, iant, ken
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/163050043
This new text won't stop the whining but it might focus the whining a little more.
LGTM=adg
R=golang-codereviews, adg
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/146680044
Not a language change.
Several inaccuracies were fixed:
1) A variable declaration may declare more than just one
variable.
2) Variable initialization follows the rules of assignments,
including n:1 assignments. The existing wording implied a 1:1
or n:n rule and generally was somewhat unspecific.
3) The rules for variable declarations with no types and
untyped initialization expressions had minor holes (issue 8088).
4) Clarified the special cases of assignments of untyped values
(we don't just have untyped constants, but also untyped bools,
e.g. from comparisons). The new wording is more direct.
To that end, introduced the notion of an untyped constant's
"default type" so that the same concept doesn't have to be
repeatedly introduced.
Fixes#8088.
LGTM=iant, r, rsc
R=r, rsc, iant, ken
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/142320043
The existing spec rules on package initialization were
contradictory: They specified that 1) dependent variables
are initialized in dependency order, and 2) independent
variables are initialized in declaration order. This 2nd
rule cannot be satisfied in general. For instance, for
var (
c = b + 2
a = 0
b = 1
)
because of its dependency on b, c must be initialized after b,
leading to the partial order b, c. Because a is independent of
b but is declared before b, we end up with the order: a, b, c.
But a is also independent of c and is declared after c, so the
order b, c, a should also be valid in contradiction to a, b, c.
The new rules are given in form of an algorithm which outlines
initialization order explicitly.
gccgo and go/types already follow these rules.
Fixes#8485.
LGTM=iant, r, rsc
R=r, rsc, iant, ken, gordon.klaus, adonovan
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/142880043
The proposed text in the last CL had a comma that was missing from the submitted spec.
LGTM=gri
R=gri
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/150720043
This CL adjusts code referring to src/pkg to refer to src.
Immediately after submitting this CL, I will submit
a change doing 'hg mv src/pkg/* src'.
That change will be too large to review with Rietveld
but will contain only the 'hg mv'.
This CL will break the build.
The followup 'hg mv' will fix it.
For more about the move, see golang.org/s/go14nopkg.
LGTM=r
R=r
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/134570043
Preparation for fixing issue 5769 (method selectors
do not auto-dereference): The actual fix may require
some cleanups in all these sections, and syntactically,
method expressions and method values are selector
expressions. Moving them next to each other so that
it's easy to see the actual changes (next CL).
No content changes besides the section moves.
LGTM=iant, rsc
R=r, rsc, iant, ken
CC=golang-codereviews
https://golang.org/cl/132300043
Rob Pike
Russ Cox
Robert Griesemer
Ian Lance Taylor
Brad Fitzpatrick
Andrew Gerrand
Dmitriy Vyukov
Matthew Dempsky
Robin Eklind
Oling Cat
Mikio Hara