Resending to the mailing list as that was my intention but I errored
again. Did the gmail UI changed again?

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [go-nuts] Redfining loop variable semantics - what's the plan?
To: Axel Wagner <axel.wagner...@googlemail.com>


On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 7:46 AM 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
<golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> You shouldn't *have* to read the language spec to understand what Go code 
> does.

This is the most strange claim I have read about Go ever.

You *must* read the language spec to understand what any programming
language does. You *cannot* just guess because "other languages" do
somethíng or use similar approaches and then be surprised you have
guessed wrong. And as can be seen often, blame the language designers
they didn't meet your unfounded expectations.

What bothers me personally about the proposal and why I think it's a
bad idea: The semantics will be defined by metadata. Any Go code
snippet with such a loop, existing or future, all over the
Internet/books/blogs, ... will become ambiguous in what it does
without those metadata, which are not usually/always available
alongside. You can say "other languages have that problem as well, see
the different C, Perl, Python, you name it... versions". And you would
be right. The point is that the Go 1 compatibility promise gave us the
nice property of Go not suffering from such problems.

I oppose the idea of introducing such a problem into the language
voluntarily, 10+ years later.

Maybe it would be better to bite the bullet, introduce Go 2 and
embrace the shizma. /s

-- 
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAA40n-UQaK1dBvo-690Z1VZDZ%2B%2BKL7gQGWi5Mq3G4x4mrxZuyg%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to