yes true.
I m not sure i intend to change that asap,
but this another topic,
i want not deep into right now.
That being said again agreed, understood, prone to happen, maybe.
On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:05:52 PM UTC+2, Egon wrote:
>
> On Friday, 2 June 2017 12:06:54 UTC+3, mhh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for this crime of thought, i was thinking it was a chance to talk
>> about it and explore different paths.
>> That, this, is the only answer, well, life is hard.
>>
>
> Thinking and discussion is helpful, but I think the format here could be
> improved.
>
> The problem in this thread is that these comments are "random thoughts"
> instead of "organized thoughts" about different aspects, without
> referencing any prior art.
>
> Organizing these thoughts and points works for these things much, much
> better. Even better is a article / blog-post for something bigger.
>
> E.g. I would consider this form:
>
> 1. real-world problem (no "animal" or "bunny" examples)
> 1.1. where it exists
> 1.2. how frequent
> 2. Current solutions
> 2.1. current solution 1 (pros/cons)
> 2.2. current solution 2 (pros/cons)
> 2.3. current solution 3 (pros/cons)
> 3. Alternative approaches
> 3.1 alternative approach 1 (pros/cons/prior-art)
> 3.2 alternative approach 2 (pros/cons/prior-art)
> 3.3 alternative approach 3 (pros/cons/prior-art)
> 4. Comparison between solutions.
> 5. Cost / benefit discussion.
>
> *Each of these around 1-3 paragraphs.*
>
> This has a good basis for a good discussion, whereas random thoughts often
> don't. Also there's always room for a middle-ground.
>
> Thinking aloud and random thoughts work somewhat in chats, but often
> doesn't end-up in something tangible that can be used later on.
>
> + Egon
>
>
>> Just for the records, i did stop thinking like that when i started
>> golang, its not like you are given the choice.
>>
>> Psst ... I must ask you about the address of the shop where you bought
>> this wonderful magical crystal bowl you use to read in the future.
>> I kind of fail to find one for my current self.
>> thanks ;)
>>
>> On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 10:17:54 AM UTC+2, Florin Pățan wrote:
>>>
>>> Since everyone thinks it but nobody bothers to reply to it: this whole
>>> thing you propose can be currently done with a for loop, which not only is
>>> explicit about what it doing, but it also lets you control if you want to
>>> exit early from it and so on. Complicating the whole language because
>>> something is cool (yet looks like a really complex thing that you need to
>>> think about while reading the code) is in no one's benefit. Stop trying to
>>> avoid a couple of extra rows of for {} (where the third row is literally
>>> just an "}") and start embracing the fact that you can understand the code
>>> by looking at it and not apply any complex mental acrobatics to figure out
>>> what those three lines of code are doing. Your future self/person after you
>>> will thank you for that.
>>
>>
--
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.
