On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Anmol Sethi wrote:
> If you were to redesign it now, would you name the method Handle?
Also speaking personally, yes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop recei
wouldn’t that make for a very awkward exported name? http.HTTPHandler?
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Anmol Sethi wrote:
>> If you were to redesign it now, would you name the method Handle?
>
> Speaking personally, I think that eithe
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Anmol Sethi wrote:
> If you were to redesign it now, would you name the method Handle?
Speaking personally, I think that either I would name the method
Handle, or I would write
type HTTPHandler interface {
HTTPHandle(...)
}
--
You received this message beca
If you were to redesign it now, would you name the method Handle?
I’ve got a similar interface in my project and I was just wondering what the
most idiomatic method name would be.
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Anmol Sethi wrote:
>>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Anmol Sethi wrote:
> Why is http.Handler’s method name ServeHTTP and not Handle? Handle seems to
> be more idiomatic.
I doubt there is any deep reason. ServeHTTP dates back to when the
Handler interface was introduced before the public release of Go
(https://gi
Why is http.Handler’s method name ServeHTTP and not Handle? Handle seems to be
more idiomatic.
--
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+unsubs
