* Matt Harden <matt.har...@gmail.com> [161001 23:34]: > I do think that T L has a point. The spec defines the syntax of the > language, and TypeSpec refers to a syntactical construct. It is not > possible in the syntax of the language to create two named types that > originate in the same TypeSpec. We seem to be saying that uint8 and byte > originate in the same "TypeSpec", but the "TypeSpec" referred to there is > an implementation detail of the compiler, not the syntactical construct > defined in the Language Specification.
Does anyone remember if there was a time when TypeSpec was defined as TypeSpec = IdentifierList Type . instead of the current TypeSpec = identifier Type . This would give a clear reason why the wording under type identity is the way it is. I don't remember such a definition, and I've been following Go since before Version 1, but not since the beginning, so this is at least conceivable. It's also possible that the Go authors were considering such a definition, and part of the spec was written, but the idea was thrown out as unnecessary and adding extra complexity, accidentally leaving an artifact of a considered, but discarded, design detail. ...Marvin -- 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 https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
