On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:24 AM, T L <tapir....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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> 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.
Well, you aren't forced to use it.
Ian
--
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.
