It was easier than i expected
https://play.golang.org/p/olooozwapD
On Friday, 13 January 2017 19:00:14 UTC+1, Ian Davis wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017, at 05:17 PM, mail...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Ignoring the error does not help
>
> https://play.golang.org/p/a8AIcHWII6
>
>
It was easier than i expected
https://play.golang.org/p/olooozwapD
On Friday, 13 January 2017 19:13:16 UTC+1, mhh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> yeah, right, it s possible and works, but its way more complex, lets
> forget about this :)
>
> This works https://play.golang.org/p/hP8Zq-LfQA
>
> On
> Some time ago I collected a number of alternatives to using generics -
see: https://appliedgo.net/generics
None of these alternatives really solve any real problem generics would
solve. Generics are types, just like first class functions. Lamenting on
the lack on generics is useless as
> None of these alternatives really solve any real problem generics would solve.
True, and the article does not mean to imply this. But often it would seem that
there is no alternative to using generics for solving a given problem although
there is one if you look close enough. Of course this
if you do so, it will be longer to download,
it also put more pressure on the server as it needs to
decompress the content as it serves it.
Other side effects occurs such as
the longer it is to serve a request
the busier the server will be
thus the more likely you are to hit the server capacity.
Rankest beginner here. Trying to learn Go by converting an old Visual
Basic application to Go (yeah, right) on Windows 10 (got all the database
stuff working with both postgre and sqlite!) The application needs to read
an .ini file to get path/filename. It bombs on the first line.
This is
Using go, when I create a function with a return... and that function uses
an if... else... condition w/ the return being passed under each, the
compiler still throws an error 'missing return at end of function'? I can
put a return at the end of the function, but it will never get to that
1. It is unexpected. When I click a link that ends with .tar.gz, I expect to
get a .tar.gz file.
2. It is a waste of disk space. Sure, as soon as they download the tarball,
they will extract it. But they still need the space for both the tarball and
the contents at the same time. So we might as
Say in my http fileserver, I have /static/foo.tar.gz. Should my fileserver
be serving it as /static/foo.tarwith content-encoding: gzip always or
should it be served as /static/foo.tar.gz with content-type: gzip?
Change foo.tar.gz with any file that ends in .gz. My question boils down to
whether
It all depends on what the user wants to have when they are done downloading.
In the case of HTML, CSS, and JS, they want an uncompressed file that is ready
for their browser to use. So you should use Content-Encoding: gzip and
Content-Type: text/html or whatever. In the case of a .tar.gz, they
While it is unexpected, what is wrong with just serving a tar file and
redirecting a foo.gz request to a foo request? Why should a user want to
have a .gz file after downloading?
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 1:38 PM wrote:
> Say you have this foo.tar.gz,
> served as /foo.tar.gz
Thank you...
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:44:33 PM UTC-6, Dave Cheney wrote:
>
> The former.
--
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
The former.
--
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
13 matches
Mail list logo