No, the reason for short variable declarations is to avoid having to stutter
the type of variables everywhere. It's part of the reason why Go is strongly
typed yet doesn't fully feel that way, and was one of the main design goals at
first.
Why the control statements require one, however, is something I wouldn't know.
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 10:50 AM, T L <tapir....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:40:02 PM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 7:21 AM, T L <tapi...@gmail.com <>> wrote:
> >
> > alternative question, why followings are not accepted in syntax:
> >
> > if var x = 5; x > 3 {
> > _ = x
> > }
> >
> > for var x = range []int{0,1,2} {
> > _ = x
> >
> > }
> >
> > switch var x = "abc"; x {
> > default:
> > _ = x
> > }
> >
> > switch var x = (interface{}(true)).(type) {
> > default:
> > _ = x
> > }
>
> That syntax adds no functionality and, at least to me, seems uglier
> and harder to read.
>
> Ian
>
> So the reason of adding short variable declarations is just to avoid
> so-called ugliness?
>
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
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.
