3 ms·
There are lots of things on my list you could do that were simple & effective that would provide me more value than this. Historically the argument against the
by kasey_junk 9y ago
There are lots of things on my list you could do that were simple & effective that would provide me more value than this.
Historically the argument against them have been about adding needless complexity. I wonder who was asking for this and how they got it prioritized.
- rhencke 9y agoIt was requested by rsc in 2015: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/11193 https://github.com/golang/go/issues/11193 It was implemented by rsc subsequently, after discussion on the issue: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/75631 https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/75631 I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate.
- kasey_junk 9y agoI’m not insinuating anything. I’m flat saying this seems like a low value feature. Other higher value features are denied on the basis of unneeded complexity.
- maloney 9y agoI mean, the project lead wanted a feature and then implemented the feature, clearly it had value to him.
- slrz 9y agoThe difference is that this feature (ideally) only affects implementation complexity, not interface complexity. It can also be dropped again tomorrow without breaking the world. This makes it wildly different from language changes, which require a lot more consideration.