Hi Scott, > Yes I see that in terms of compatibility it "all works out", but it seems > underspecified what should happen.
Which bit do you think is underspecified? To my mind the behaviour is very clearly defined, notwithstanding the next point. > Also, although your experience reports are > clearly presented and make sense, when I step back my own impression > is: that's not simple. That's certainly true. But... > I'd rather be spending time coding than figuring out > or worrying about chains of cyclic dependencies going back in time > indefinitely. As would I, but I think in some situations these cycles are unavoidable, assuming you can't collapse the two modules down into one (and in the GopherJS we can't). Thanks, Paul -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
