Thank you Chris, I will update the styleguide to reflect the correct naming.
@rog: I think it doesn't hurt and provides context, especially when digging through code on GitHub. E.g. when having a package at pkg/some-folder you always need to know that there is a pkg folder. On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 19:30:22 UTC+2, Chris Hines wrote: > > This discussion points out another nomenclature problem in the list. What > the list refers to as a "Package comment" is actually a "Canonical import > path" comment. See https://golang.org/doc/go1.4#canonicalimports > > Package comments (as defined in this blog post: > https://blog.golang.org/godoc-documenting-go-code) are for documenting a > package, not restricting where it can be imported from. > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 1:24:44 PM UTC-4, Peter Bourgon wrote: >> >> I think it's cost without much benefit. By definition, if a package >> exists on your filesystem, you know where it came from: you put it >> there, and you can inspect the path. >> >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:19 PM, roger peppe <rogp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 1 August 2017 at 18:04, Peter Bourgon <pe...@bourgon.org> wrote: >> >> Generally nice list. I find these items controversial i.e. shorthand >> >> for I don't agree with them ;) >> > [...] >> >> - Use package comment >> > >> > This puzzles me. Why don't you think that having a package comment >> > is a good idea? >> > >> > rog. >> > -- 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.
