sorry...i'm not skilled at linking to old groups discussions.
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/xwkDwB9Q0Rs/discussion
not agitating. ;-) just recalling.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 9:16 PM Rob Pike wrote:
> edit: seems NOT worth it.
>
> -rob
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 4:16 PM
edit: seems NOT worth it.
-rob
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 4:16 PM Rob Pike wrote:
> That link doesn't work - it's into your mailbox.
>
> However, I do remember talking about this option some time ago, including
> when the language was first being designed. It didn't seem common enough to
>
That link doesn't work - it's into your mailbox.
However, I do remember talking about this option some time ago, including
when the language was first being designed. It didn't seem common enough to
warrant adding, and C got along fine without it. Your regularity argument
carries some weight but
not Rob but rather Ian...
(6/22/2012)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/go%2Fgolang-nuts/FMfcgxwBTsjnkHgqhvQfLqrXsJdHZRxC
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 7:52 PM Michael Jones
wrote:
> I brought it up early on, wanting AND (&) and OR (|) as well as AND-ASSIGN
> (&=) and OR-ASSIGN (|=).
>
> Not
I brought it up early on, wanting AND (&) and OR (|) as well as AND-ASSIGN
(&=) and OR-ASSIGN (|=).
Not enthusiastic about shortcut operators on assignment form.
Rob posted here that he was ok/open to the idea.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 5:55 PM Caleb Spare wrote:
> Sometimes when working with
