It might indeed make more sense to fix the cyclic dependencies. I'm not
even sure
there will be any. I'm just trying to anticipate possible problems.
Thanks,
Jon
On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 5:37:20 PM UTC-8 chri...@aperture.us wrote:
> Doesn't it make more sense to fix the cyclic
Doesn't it make more sense to fix the cyclic dependencies rather than hack
the go compiler and make it do something it wasn't designed to do?
Best regards,
Christian
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022, 4:44 PM jlfo...@berkeley.edu
wrote:
> The reason I'm asking this question is because, as a learning
The reason I'm asking this question is because, as a learning exercise, I'm
trying to
rewrite several large existing applications in Go. These have been around a
while
and have a very sensible source subdirectory layout, sometimes with
multiple levels of
subdirectories.
My initial approach was
Don't do it.
Don't fight the Go tools. Use them the way they are intended. They are your
friends.
Put all your package files in a single directory. Or break them up into
multiple packages.
That is the way everyone else write Go. If you follow the convention, your
life will be simpler,
and your
