Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(283)

Issue 2053041: code review 2053041: gofmt: permit omission of first index in slice expression (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
14 years, 11 months ago by gri
Modified:
14 years, 11 months ago
Reviewers:
cw
CC:
rsc, golang-dev, r
Visibility:
Public.

Description

gofmt: permit omission of first index in slice expression

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : code review 2053041: gofmt: permit omission of first index in slice expression #

Patch Set 3 : code review 2053041: gofmt: permit omission of first index in slice expression #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+21 lines, -4 lines) Patch
M src/pkg/go/ast/ast.go View 1 chunk +1 line, -1 line 0 comments Download
M src/pkg/go/parser/parser.go View 1 chunk +4 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M src/pkg/go/printer/nodes.go View 1 chunk +4 lines, -2 lines 0 comments Download
M src/pkg/go/printer/testdata/expressions.golden View 2 chunks +4 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/pkg/go/printer/testdata/expressions.input View 2 chunks +4 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/pkg/go/printer/testdata/expressions.raw View 2 chunks +4 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 5
gri
Hello rsc (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com, r), I'd like you to review this change.
14 years, 11 months ago (2010-08-27 16:57:41 UTC) #1
rsc
LGTM I assume we'll review the spec change in http://codereview.appspot.com/1957045/ ?
14 years, 11 months ago (2010-08-27 17:05:48 UTC) #2
gri
*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=b94cd7efa692 *** gofmt: permit omission of first index in slice expression R=rsc ...
14 years, 11 months ago (2010-08-27 21:49:55 UTC) #3
cw
i was under the impression foo[:bar] had no definition yet and was being 'reserved' for ...
14 years, 11 months ago (2010-08-31 05:50:19 UTC) #4
rsc
14 years, 11 months ago (2010-08-31 11:39:50 UTC) #5
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:50,  <cw@f00f.org> wrote:
> i was under the impression foo[:bar] had no definition yet and was being
> 'reserved' for future use/consideration?

It's been under consideration for a long time.
See issue 381.

Russ
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b