On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 12:46:38 PM UTC+2, Jesper Louis Andersen wrote: > > > You can always solve that with a rename: > > import ( > is "constraints" > ) > > but you run the risk of users not knowing what the "is" package is. >
Of course, but like you said, "is" would be unfamiliar to most other users. People usually use the default package name and that's what we will have to read the most. > Also, the name "is" doesn't follow the usual naming style of Go packages. > I'm not sure if there is a Go standard library package naming style other than "relatively short name". > > I tend to find such package names risky because they don't really say what > they contain. > The package doc comment can say that it contains constraints. > This means they become attractors of all kinds of different functionality > over time, where most of that functionality isn't belonging in there but in > separate packages. It is like declaring a package such as "util", "misc", > or "aux". > I'd trust the Go maintainers that they can resist to clutter it with unrelated things. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/f623ffc6-757c-44a7-bbcf-0e8b59efa714o%40googlegroups.com.
