So in 2012 Cyril Oblikov wrote
Why isn't this code correct?
var N int = ...
for i := range N {
doSmth(i)
}
In my opinion it looks much simpler than:
var N int = ...
for i := 0; i < N; i++ {
doSmth(i)
}
So we should say to Cyril (whether he is today), that it is now correct.
You just n
I made some changes to use range over int in our code base and was
pleasantly surprised with the improvement in readability.
We had quite a few instances where the number of iterations involved a
function call which we don't want to repeat:
- for i, n := 0, f(); i < n; i++ {
+ for i := range f(
https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/pierrre/assert#section-readme
Le vendredi 23 février 2024 à 09:34:43 UTC+1, Harmen a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 04:41:53PM -0800, Seth Hoenig wrote:
> > https://github.com/shoenig/test
> >
> > We've been using this for a couple years now, and it's been great.
I've noticed what looks at its surface that some code that is covered
doesn't show up in the cover profile data. Unfortunately, I don't have a
minimal example as I have no idea how to drill down. So please bear with my
explanations and hopefully it's a problem between VT100 and chair, I just
do
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 04:41:53PM -0800, Seth Hoenig wrote:
> https://github.com/shoenig/test
>
> We've been using this for a couple years now, and it's been great. I am
> biased though, for obvious reasons. It makes use of the go-cmp library
> under the hood for creating legible diffs, and int
