It's pretty consistent with the message I've been pushing for a while; each package should have a well defined purpose, and that purpose should be enumerated by the pacakge's name. I find that when I apply that logic to my own projects, I tend to have less packages, not more.
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 03:23:17 UTC+11, adon...@google.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, 13 December 2016 20:06:49 UTC-5, Dave Cheney wrote: >> >> I advice caution, Go is not Java and does not permit circular >> dependencies. The more packages you have, the greater the chance you have >> of creating a circular dependency. >> > > That's a rather dark viewpoint. Absent further information, there's > nothing wrong with breaking up a large package into smaller ones, nor with > using tools to help do so. Even packages with circular dependencies can be > separated by using function or interface parameters to express the > interdependence. Of course it can be overused, but so can any technique. > -- 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.
