On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:01:18 PM UTC+8, Pietro Gagliardi
(andlabs) wrote:
>
> No, the reason for short variable declarations is to avoid having to
> stutter the type of variables everywhere.
>
You can also avoid having to stutter the type of variables by using var
declaration.
> 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 <tapi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> 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...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit 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.
