I didn't say you can't write Java without using a framework. I didn't say using a framework has anything to do with OOP. I didn't say there are no or just a few "frameworks" (whatever you mean) in Go. I didn't say you can't create framework without using inheritance.
сб, 2 янв. 2021 г. в 02:35, robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com>: > I really hope my negative perception of your attitude stems from a > language barrier. To clarify, I was trying to state that you can write Java > without using a framework, just as you can write Go using a framework. > Using a framework has nothing to do with OOP. Even the term framework is > misleading - there are many large “libraries” in C that I would consider a > framework. > > On Jan 1, 2021, at 5:05 PM, Space A. <reexist...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You keep replying with random sentences no matter what I say, just > combining known words in random phrases. Okay, but please put me out of > your list, cause I have better games to play. > > > сб, 2 янв. 2021 г. в 00:50, robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com>: > >> Those concerns are unrelated. There are plenty of frameworks in Go as >> well. You can create frameworks without using inheritance. >> >> On Jan 1, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Space A. <reexist...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Composition is just a principle, which can be implemented on different >> layers by different ways. I'd say in Java you will be forced not only to >> follow OOP (with inheritance and all of that ofc) even if you don't need >> it, you will end up writing in some framework and that framework will >> become your language, rather than vanilla Java, unless you're doing simple >> examples for students. First question Go newcomers ask on forums which >> framework I should use for my application. >> >> >> >> пт, 1 янв. 2021 г. в 23:27, robert engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com>: >> >>> You can write Java (or any other OOP with inheritance) using composition >>> rather than inheritance. Much of the Java stdlib uses both. It can be >>> argued that most usages of anonymous inner classes are composition rather >>> than inheritance. >>> >>> On Jan 1, 2021, at 1:59 PM, Space A. <reexist...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Wait, I think I get it. Are you making a distinction between object >>> oriented /languages/ and object oriented /programs/ (which may or may not >>> be written in an object oriented language)? >>> You are absolutely correct, my friend, so you see, OOP is just a >>> paradigm in software development. Program can be entirely OOP, or >>> partially, such as module, or library. And you have tools such as >>> programming languages. When these languages provide you with instruments >>> for building your OOP program *out of the box*, being a first-class >>> citizens, you could call that language OOP. Key feature of major OOP >>> languages is inheritance and all supporting stuff. But you can use non-OOP >>> language such as C, just that you will need to add some moving parts >>> yourself instead of using what's given by language. >>> >>> Same with CSP. Go is often called a CSP language, or language with CSP >>> capabilities, because it has all needed features, such as goroutines and >>> channels out of the box as first class objects. But this doesn't mean you >>> cannot write CSP program in any other language, you can, but you will >>> sometimes have to invent a wheel. >>> >>> >>> > For example, from my interpretation of your definition, Java and C++ >>> would be considered object oriented languages, because they favor class >>> inheritance over composition. But a language like Scheme or JavaScript >>> would not be considered an object oriented language because they do not >>> have traditional class inheritance. >>> Exactly. Thank you for giving me hope that at the end at least some of >>> us living on the same planet. >>> >>> >>> пт, 1 янв. 2021 г. в 19:07, Beka Westberg <bekawestb...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> > First of all I feel it's more rhetoric, it's same as "Less is >>>> exponentially more", and "[Go] ... Arguably more object oriented than say >>>> Java or C++ ". I believe if you think logically "less" could not be "more", >>>> right, and you wouldn't insist on that? Same goes to the statement that Go >>>> is more object oriented. What I think he meant was "Go has even better >>>> compatibilities even for OOP because of composition" which also in line >>>> with what I said that you can use ANY language to write OOP program. >>>> >>>> Wait, I think I get it. Are you making a distinction between object >>>> oriented /languages/ and object oriented /programs/ (which may or may not >>>> be written in an object oriented language)? >>>> >>>> For example, from my interpretation of your definition, Java and C++ >>>> would be considered object oriented languages, because they favor class >>>> inheritance over composition. But a language like Scheme or JavaScript >>>> would not be considered an object oriented language because they do not >>>> have traditional class inheritance. >>>> >>>> However, it seems like you are saying that you can write an object >>>> oriented /program/ in any of the above languages? Each of the above >>>> languages allows you to create "things" that have internal mutable state, >>>> and can receive messages, which seems like a pretty good definition of an >>>> object :D Hence, object oriented programming is possible. >>>> >>>> I don't really have an opinion on this. I just want to know if my >>>> interpretation of your opinion was close, or way off base hehe. >>>> >>>> On Friday, January 1, 2021 at 6:05:07 AM UTC-8 Space A. wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ok I see you change a little bit your position, so I only comment on >>>>> this: >>>>> >>>>> > His verbatim quote is "Go is a profoundly object oriented language. >>>>> Arguably more object oriented than say Java or C++". That clearly >>>>> contradicts your statement that Go is not an OOP language. He also goes to >>>>> great length to say that Go does not have inheritance (in favor of >>>>> composition), which, together with the first one, clearly implies that he >>>>> is contradicting your assertion that "OOP is all about inheritance". >>>>> >>>>> > I don't see a lot of room for interpretation here. >>>>> >>>>> Well, I do. I do believe if you truly think he meant "Go is OOP >>>>> language" and continue insisting you are wrong. >>>>> >>>>> 1. First of all I feel it's more rhetoric, it's same as "Less is >>>>> exponentially more", and "[Go] ... Arguably more object oriented than say >>>>> Java or C++ ". I believe if you think logically "less" could not be >>>>> "more", >>>>> right, and you wouldn't insist on that? Same goes to the statement that Go >>>>> is more object oriented. What I think he meant was "Go has even better >>>>> compatibilities even for OOP because of composition" which also in line >>>>> with what I said that you can use ANY language to write OOP program. >>>>> 2. There is FAQ question and answer, and I do believe Rob took part in >>>>> answering FAQ, and this one in particular. >>>>> >>>>> Anyways as you said in the beginning of thread, Go is no a religion, >>>>> Rob is not Jesus, he is alive and he can explain his position if it makes >>>>> any sense. Maybe I'm wrong and don't understand something, that's >>>>> possible. >>>>> So I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> пт, 1 янв. 2021 г. в 16:48, Axel Wagner <axel.wa...@googlemail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM Space A. <reexi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> > Javascript is an incredibly popular language with non-inheritance >>>>>>> OOP. Or, at least, no inheritance at the type-level (so either way, >>>>>>> invalidating your statement that OOP is about type-hierarchies). >>>>>>> >>>>>> This is debatable but JS is a non-OOP language. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's certainly a valid opinion to hold. I don't believe it, >>>>>> empirically, agrees with the common wisdom around it, though. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> And yet if you wonder, there is no definition of what OOP language >>>>>>> is. Give it any, I don't mind. But it seems to most of us it's quite >>>>>>> clear >>>>>>> (by major examples like C++ or Java) until we start arguing just for >>>>>>> arguing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> With this, I agree. Note, again, that it doesn't actually *matter* >>>>>> for the question of whether or not Go should get generics, whether we >>>>>> call >>>>>> it an OOP language or not. And yet, it has become a point of argument in >>>>>> this thread - AFAICT, purely for the sake of arguing. >>>>>> >>>>>> > Repetition does not make a false statement true. Instead of >>>>>>> copy-pasting yourself, it would be prudent to cite sources. For >>>>>>> example, is >>>>>>> there any text book that agrees with your definition of OOP? >>>>>>> What exactly you disagree on? I will copy and paste once again for >>>>>>> your convenience =) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There really is no need (though I recognize what you are trying to >>>>>> do). Let me quote a couple of your statements that I disagree with: >>>>>> • "Go doesn't have classes and is not an OOP language." >>>>>> • "Oh my... It is pure sophistic nonsense. OOP is all about >>>>>> inheritance. Not just whether you have "objects" in a language spec or >>>>>> not." >>>>>> • "As I said, OOP (if we talk about language, not a program written >>>>>> in OOP paradigm, because you can use ANY language for that) is all about >>>>>> inheritance." >>>>>> >>>>>> And in the interest of clarity and to illustrate that I'm not just >>>>>> trying to argue for the sake of argument: I do agree with you that Go >>>>>> favors composition over inheritance. And I do agree that inheritance >>>>>> based >>>>>> OOP prioritizes type-hierarchies. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe you disagree with Rob Pike who made statements quite similar >>>>>>> to what I said regarding composition in his quote I given above? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If we are making an appeal to authority, I thnik you'll find he made >>>>>> statements that directly contradict the ones I quoted above as disagree >>>>>> with. And he made statements that support the ones I agree with. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's ridiculous. There is a question in FAQ. And answer you are >>>>>>> aware of, which says Go is not OOP, which Rop Pike for sure aware of as >>>>>>> well. And his wording in that video means not how you trying to >>>>>>> interpret. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> His verbatim quote is "Go is a profoundly object oriented language. >>>>>> Arguably more object oriented than say Java or C++". That clearly >>>>>> contradicts your statement that Go is not an OOP language. He also goes >>>>>> to >>>>>> great length to say that Go does not have inheritance (in favor of >>>>>> composition), which, together with the first one, clearly implies that he >>>>>> is contradicting your assertion that "OOP is all about inheritance". >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see a lot of room for interpretation here. >>>>>> >>>>>> > But either way, if you don't mind me asking: What exactly does any >>>>>>> of this have to do with generics? >>>>>>> Good question, ask Alex Besogonov, because he started this arguing >>>>>>> that Go has classes (opponent meant he doesn't want making Go like >>>>>>> C++/Java). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If we are pointing fingers, the statement he reacted to was "The real >>>>>> value for Go is it's simplicity, avoidance of generics and avoidance of >>>>>> classes", not "I don't want to make Go like C++/Java". And Alex put his >>>>>> statement into parenthesis, clearly indicating that he considers it only >>>>>> a >>>>>> minor side-point. >>>>>> >>>>>> But, if we agree it doesn't matter, we should probably just drop it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> пт, 1 янв. 2021 г. в 05:16, Axel Wagner <axel.wa...@googlemail.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 1:23 AM Space A. <reexi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Sorry to disappoint you (actually, no, not sorry) but OOP has >>>>>>>>> nothing to do with inheritance. It's a common feature in >>>>>>>>> object-oriented >>>>>>>>> programming but it's not essential. >>>>>>>>> > Moreover, Go has inheritance as well (struct embedding and >>>>>>>>> interface inheritance), making it a fairly typical example. The only >>>>>>>>> significant difference is that Go has structural typing, instead of >>>>>>>>> manually declaration of implemented interfaces. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You don't disappoint me by repeating wrong statements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I said, OOP (if we talk about language, not a program written >>>>>>>>> in OOP paradigm, because you can use ANY language for that) is all >>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>> inheritance. Period. Proof - take any major OOP language and see how >>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>> done, what's in its heart. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Javascript is an incredibly popular language with non-inheritance >>>>>>>> OOP. Or, at least, no inheritance at the type-level (so either way, >>>>>>>> invalidating your statement that OOP is about type-hierarchies). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Secondly, and I copy-paste myself here: >>>>>>>>> Classes (like in Java) vs structs (like in Go) is about >>>>>>>>> inheritance vs composition, not about attaching fields and >>>>>>>>> methods. Inheritance implies type hierarchy, child and parent, virtual >>>>>>>>> functions, abstract and final implementations and so on so forth to >>>>>>>>> keep >>>>>>>>> this all of this manageable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Repetition does not make a false statement true. Instead of >>>>>>>> copy-pasting yourself, it would be prudent to cite sources. For >>>>>>>> example, is >>>>>>>> there any text book that agrees with your definition of OOP? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you don't understand what it means, please study a little bit >>>>>>>>> (with all respect and blabla, I also learn all the time). Because >>>>>>>>> these two >>>>>>>>> approaches are different. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is some small quote and link which I think can help: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My late friend Alain Fournier once told me that he considered the >>>>>>>>>> lowest form of academic work to be taxonomy. And you know what? Type >>>>>>>>>> hierarchies are just taxonomy. You need to decide what piece goes in >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> box, every type's parent, whether A inherits from B or B from A. Is >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> sortable array an array that sorts or a sorter represented by an >>>>>>>>>> array? If >>>>>>>>>> you believe that types address all design issues you must make that >>>>>>>>>> decision. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I believe that's a preposterous way to think about programming. >>>>>>>>>> What matters isn't the ancestor relations between things but what >>>>>>>>>> they can >>>>>>>>>> do for you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That, of course, is where interfaces come into Go. But they're >>>>>>>>>> part of a bigger picture, the true Go philosophy. >>>>>>>>>> If C++ and Java are about type hierarchies and the taxonomy of >>>>>>>>>> types, Go is about composition. >>>>>>>>>> Doug McIlroy, the eventual inventor of Unix pipes, wrote in 1964 >>>>>>>>>> (!): >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We should have some ways of coupling programs like garden >>>>>>>>>> hose--screw in another segment when it becomes necessary to massage >>>>>>>>>> data in >>>>>>>>>> another way. This is the way of IO also. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is the way of Go also. Go takes that idea and pushes it very >>>>>>>>>> far. It is a language of composition and coupling. >>>>>>>>>> The obvious example is the way interfaces give us the composition >>>>>>>>>> of components. It doesn't matter what that thing is, if it implements >>>>>>>>>> method M I can just drop it in here. >>>>>>>>>> Another important example is how concurrency gives us the >>>>>>>>>> composition of independently executing computations. >>>>>>>>>> And there's even an unusual (and very simple) form of type >>>>>>>>>> composition: embedding. >>>>>>>>>> These compositional techniques are what give Go its flavor, which >>>>>>>>>> is profoundly different from the flavor of C++ or Java programs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One thing that is conspicuously absent from this quote, of course, >>>>>>>> is the term "Object oriented programming" (or even just "Object"). >>>>>>>> FTR, if >>>>>>>> you quote Rob Pike, you should also be aware that he has always >>>>>>>> staunchly >>>>>>>> defended the stance that Go is an OOP language: >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=750&v=rKnDgT73v8s >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But either way, if you don't mind me asking: What exactly does any >>>>>>>> of this have to do with generics? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 23:27, Alex Besogonov <alex.be...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 12:23:35 PM UTC-8 Space A. >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > OOP isn't specific about how inheritance is handled (or if it >>>>>>>>>>> is even supported) >>>>>>>>>>> Oh my... It is pure sophistic nonsense. OOP is all about >>>>>>>>>>> inheritance. Not just whether you have "objects" in a language spec >>>>>>>>>>> or not. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry to disappoint you (actually, no, not sorry) but OOP has >>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with inheritance. It's a common feature in >>>>>>>>>> object-oriented >>>>>>>>>> programming but it's not essential. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Moreover, Go has inheritance as well (struct embedding and >>>>>>>>>> interface inheritance), making it a fairly typical example. The only >>>>>>>>>> significant difference is that Go has structural typing, instead of >>>>>>>>>> manually declaration of implemented interfaces. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > But on the topic of generics, this entire thread seems >>>>>>>>>>> alarmist. Generics will open a huge door for libraries to be >>>>>>>>>>> written that >>>>>>>>>>> will make our lives easier. I'm thinking specifically about data >>>>>>>>>>> processing and machine learning. A lot of devs use Python right >>>>>>>>>>> now for >>>>>>>>>>> this which leads to duplication of code across languages. Complex >>>>>>>>>>> algorithms will be able to be shared without hacky type conversions >>>>>>>>>>> wrapping every function call. >>>>>>>>>>> Who is "yours"? You talk about Python so just go ahead and use >>>>>>>>>>> Python if it serves you, convince your team that Python is better, >>>>>>>>>>> whatever. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You know that this argument can be applied to you as well? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> среда, 30 декабря 2020 г. в 22:46:12 UTC+3, nichol...@gmail.com: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OOP isn't specific about how inheritance is handled (or if it >>>>>>>>>>>> is even supported). The basic definition is objects with fields >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> methods, and being able to address the itself (typically using >>>>>>>>>>>> 'this' or >>>>>>>>>>>> 'self', but Go is unique in that you define what to call the >>>>>>>>>>>> object). It >>>>>>>>>>>> does composition differently than most languages, but the >>>>>>>>>>>> functional needs >>>>>>>>>>>> are met. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But on the topic of generics, this entire thread seems >>>>>>>>>>>> alarmist. Generics will open a huge door for libraries to be >>>>>>>>>>>> written that >>>>>>>>>>>> will make our lives easier. I'm thinking specifically about data >>>>>>>>>>>> processing and machine learning. A lot of devs use Python right >>>>>>>>>>>> now for >>>>>>>>>>>> this which leads to duplication of code across languages. Complex >>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms will be able to be shared without hacky type conversions >>>>>>>>>>>> wrapping every function call. We'll be able to use things like >>>>>>>>>>>> trees as >>>>>>>>>>>> simply as we use maps or slices. I don't think we'll see the >>>>>>>>>>>> language turn >>>>>>>>>>>> into the grossness that is Java or C++ because of it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 4:27:15 AM UTC-8 Space A. >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Go doesn't have classes and is not an OOP language. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Classes (like in Java) vs structs (like in Go) is about >>>>>>>>>>>>> inheritance vs composition, not about attaching fields and >>>>>>>>>>>>> methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Inheritance implies type hierarchy, child and parent, virtual >>>>>>>>>>>>> functions, >>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract and final implementations and so on so forth to keep >>>>>>>>>>>>> this all of >>>>>>>>>>>>> this manageable. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> вторник, 29 декабря 2020 г. в 23:27:45 UTC+3, Alex Besogonov: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please, stop being so condescending to newcomers and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-professional developers. Generics as uses by end-users will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their experience, not make it harder. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And what is this obsession with "classes"? Go has them - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> structs with methods are classes). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic >>>>>>>>>> in the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/LEEuJPOg0oo/unsubscribe >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email >>>>>>>>>> to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/7b58c437-4507-4d75-b0a2-de7b0ba8b58dn%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/7b58c437-4507-4d75-b0a2-de7b0ba8b58dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 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...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CADKwOTd4%3DiPTtyBRhFW-aQFoEMd0jsVzrSUhTb2PtLyMWKxHiQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CADKwOTd4%3DiPTtyBRhFW-aQFoEMd0jsVzrSUhTb2PtLyMWKxHiQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>> Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/LEEuJPOg0oo/unsubscribe. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/9be2bdba-7e5d-42c2-be19-3975e0d51fbcn%40googlegroups.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/9be2bdba-7e5d-42c2-be19-3975e0d51fbcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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/CADKwOTcr3WOWf%3DuvxtsCYbG95LkvTqqDMuYroMrdFGAkEr%2BzLQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CADKwOTcr3WOWf%3DuvxtsCYbG95LkvTqqDMuYroMrdFGAkEr%2BzLQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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/CADKwOTcq%3DOTgSsVNDqqFcKaM8AqFFpjRivJq93ETKFbeV9SD5Q%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CADKwOTcq%3DOTgSsVNDqqFcKaM8AqFFpjRivJq93ETKFbeV9SD5Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> > -- > 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/CADKwOTf6om7HLUjXPeyqCW9rRpC0ffiaOO5BY7OEwQ1VQ4jo0g%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CADKwOTf6om7HLUjXPeyqCW9rRpC0ffiaOO5BY7OEwQ1VQ4jo0g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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/CADKwOTcsjiRJMPLpVyJP3Kinni_HepZh3xHj-OSjsMDw8_UwUw%40mail.gmail.com.
