Re: [go-nuts] Go Styleguide

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

Re: [go-nuts] Go Styleguide

Ah yes, my fault, I didn't look at the style guide before replying - I assumed the nomenclature used by Chris. As for canonical import path comments, I have mixed feelings. They are useful because even if a repository exists in your filesystem, it may contain imports that are intended are interna

Re: [go-nuts] Go Styleguide

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-docu

Re: [go-nuts] Go Styleguide

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 wrote: > On 1 August 2017 at 18:04, Peter Bourgon wrote: >> Generally nice list.

Re: [go-nuts] Go Styleguide

On 1 August 2017 at 18:04, Peter Bourgon 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 m

Re: [go-nuts] Go Styleguide

Generally nice list. I find these items controversial i.e. shorthand for I don't agree with them ;) - Use assert-libraries - Don't under-package - Use package comment On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 1:39 PM, wrote: > Hey, I just released a Go Styleguide, please let me know what you think! > > -- > You

Re: [go-nuts] Go Styleguide

I now had time to review your points extensively: - I agree about the non-stdlib packages and removed direct mention of them while still using them for examples to give a starting point. - Re under-package: I added a comment to clarify to split packages if you're unsure. - The Makefile section w

[go-nuts] Go Styleguide

Maybe you can take a look at https://peter.bourgon.org/go-best-practices-2016/ Some part of this Peter's practices are sweet. -- 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

Re: [go-nuts] Go Styleguide

Hey Robert, thank you very much for the feedback! Very glad you like (most of) it. I'll take your points into account tomorrow. -- 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, sen

Re: [go-nuts] Go Styleguide

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017, at 07:39, ha...@arne.me wrote: > Hey, I just released a Go Styleguide[1], please let me know what you think! This is great! Going to focus on criticisms because they have the most value, but I really think it is excellent. - Feels more like a best practices than a style gui

[go-nuts] Go Styleguide

Hey, I just released a Go Styleguide , please let me know what you think! -- 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