On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 5:43:48 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 7:50 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?
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. Your examples are
> about the way that various control flow statements permit a short
> variable declaration. Obviously short variable declarations can also
> be used as statements by themselves. I don't know what you are
> referring to with your question.
>
> Ian
>
What I mean is, if we are not forced use short forms as the first
expression in control flow blocks, it would be cool.
--
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.
