[go-nuts] Re: Fancy Comments & Documentation

I personally think that in the specific case of OOP code syntactic sugar declarative structuring stuff - and maybe also godoc header comments such as within type struct and type interfaces would make Go code even more readable. There is limits to how far readability and consequential maintainab

[go-nuts] Re: Fancy Comments & Documentation

Thanks everyone for posting. I poked my head around the standard library in search of comments, and the only file I found so far that uses --- lines: https://golang.org/src/go/ast/ast.go ... which is used to separate sections. // --

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Fancy Comments & Documentation

If you want gofmt to preserve ASCII art, just indent it. https://play.golang.org/p/2ulwl8orRlG On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Louki Sumirniy < louki.sumirniy.stal...@gmail.com> wrote: > If your variable and function names don't explain what is going on, you > will encounter a big maintenance p

[go-nuts] Re: Fancy Comments & Documentation

If your variable and function names don't explain what is going on, you will encounter a big maintenance problem with your code as non-updated comments contradict your unreadable code. Very occasionally I find a use for attention-grabbing comments, number one for this, and personally I consider

[go-nuts] Re: Fancy Comments & Documentation

gofmt and godoc remove choices that are fun, artistic, or tempting, but distracting. I think you'll be best served by Go without the box. Matt On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 6:42:40 PM UTC-5, Chris FractalBach wrote: > > Test #1 > Source: > /* > +--+ > |

[go-nuts] Re: Fancy Comments & Documentation

Test #1 Source: /* +--+ | fancy box | +--+ package goexplore explores Go! */ package goexplore Result: