Sorry, I did not mean to hijack the discussion. To summarize our answer on Russ's question - in a current form Go's binary packages are not useful for our team.
Thanks, Andrey On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 2:15:57 PM UTC-6, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Andrey Tcherepanov > <xnow4f...@sneakemail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > Would replacement of "pure" > > compiled-and-ready-to-be-linked library packaging with just compiled > and > > compressed AST (probably lightly optimized) be a better solution? > > Thanks. It's a fine approach but it's a considerable amount of design > and implementation, and it's not completely clear it's possible at > all. If someone wants to make implementing such a scheme a > longer-term goal, that would be interesting. But discussing that will > distract us from Russ's question, which is: should we continue to > support binary packages approximately as they exist today? > > 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.
