3 ms·
For what it's worth, I do think it's more readable, but it's just not a good idea. It's too easy for people to inject variables into their strings and get your
by NateDad 13y ago
For what it's worth, I do think it's more readable, but it's just not a good idea. It's too easy for people to inject variables into their strings and get your code to print out data that's in memory.
map, reduce, filter, etc will be easy to code up once there are generics. There will almost certainly be generics in Go at some point, that point is just not right now (and almost certainly not before 2.0).
- jongraehl 13y agoWhat? There's absolutely no way for a user string to get scanned for format instructions unless you 'eval' or something like that. The proposed syntax is only for string literals in source code.
- NateDad 13y agoAhh, oops, that was pointed out below as well. Sorry, I assumed a string was a string, not that this only works in string literals. That's certainly better than letter user-supplied strings work this way.