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

2019-07-06 Thread Lucio De Re
On 7/6/19, Jakub Labath wrote: > "And yes go does have panic/recover - but I never use them for the same > reasons I > dislike exceptions. It's just really hard to reason about such jumps in logic > especially > in massively concurrent programs that go allows us to write." I agree with

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Rule-swarm attacks can outdo deep reasoning

2018-10-05 Thread Lucio De Re
Good catch. I must have first coded that back before I fully accepted the "exit the loop as early as possible" philosophy. I have no better excuse :-). Lucio. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generic alternatives: new basic types?

2018-09-23 Thread Lucio De Re
On 9/23/18, Robert Engels wrote: > I take offense to that. I apologized for my statement that was worded more > harshly than intended. But if you think that Go is beyond criticism just > because of ??? Anything??? Go is a GREAT tool for many classes of > applications, but it is certainly not

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generic alternatives: new basic types?

2018-09-23 Thread Lucio De Re
ails from it, >>> send an email to [2]golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit [3]https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Michael T. Jones >>> [4]michael.jo...@gmail.com >>> >>>

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generic alternatives: new basic types?

2018-09-22 Thread Lucio De Re
"Google ate my homework, sir!" Let me try again... On 9/22/18, Ian Denhardt wrote: > > This is a very good insight. There's no technical reason why Go couldn't > define a built-in interface, much like `error`, for various operators, > e.g. > > type adder(type T) interface { > Add(T)

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generic alternatives: new basic types?

2018-09-21 Thread Lucio De Re
On 9/22/18, Michael Jones wrote: > these seem excellent points all around. > > one area of difficulty seems to me the lack of operator overloading. now, > hold your breath, i'm not arguing for it here. but it highlights a kind of > structural issue that is in the air around the discussion of

Re: [go-nuts] Re: GO Vs D

2017-08-03 Thread Lucio De Re
voip: > sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net > 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder -- Lucio De Re 2 Piet Retief St Kestell (Eastern Free State) 9860 South Africa Ph.: +27 58 653 1433 Cell: +27

Re: [go-nuts] NullTime in SQL drivers: how to leak them to the user?

2016-10-13 Thread Lucio De Re
>> 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 >> <mailto:golang-nuts+unsubscr.

Re: [go-nuts] A compatible extension to the for construct

2016-09-12 Thread Lucio De Re
nue would be the only sensible option and see if your alternative still (too many things in my head at the same time). Ian, thanks. -- Lucio De Re 2 Piet Retief St Kestell (Eastern Free State) 9860 South Africa Ph.: +27 58 653 1433 Cell: +27 83 251 5824 FAX: +27 58 653 1435 -- You received thi