I went with "ParseWithFragment" instead of the suggested "ParseFragment"; the latter is inaccurate because the ...
13 years, 1 month ago
(2012-02-16 04:41:23 UTC)
#2
I went with "ParseWithFragment" instead of the suggested
"ParseFragment"; the latter is inaccurate because the function is
parsing a whole URL (with a fragment), not parsing a fragment.
Dave.
On 2012/02/16 04:42:35, dsymonds wrote: > On 2012/02/16 04:41:56, r wrote: > > does the ...
13 years, 1 month ago
(2012-02-16 04:44:21 UTC)
#6
On 2012/02/16 04:42:35, dsymonds wrote:
> On 2012/02/16 04:41:56, r wrote:
> > does the go 1 doc need an update?
>
> Yes, will do.
Actually, I'm not sure it does. The package didn't even exist in r60.
On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:41 PM, David Symonds wrote: > I went with "ParseWithFragment" ...
13 years, 1 month ago
(2012-02-16 04:46:14 UTC)
#7
On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:41 PM, David Symonds wrote:
> I went with "ParseWithFragment" instead of the suggested
> "ParseFragment"; the latter is inaccurate because the function is
> parsing a whole URL (with a fragment), not parsing a fragment.
not a lovely name, although i don't have a better one.
-rob
On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, dsymonds@golang.org wrote: > On 2012/02/16 04:42:35, dsymonds wrote: ...
13 years, 1 month ago
(2012-02-16 04:47:44 UTC)
#8
On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, dsymonds@golang.org wrote:
> On 2012/02/16 04:42:35, dsymonds wrote:
>> On 2012/02/16 04:41:56, r wrote:
>> > does the go 1 doc need an update?
>
>> Yes, will do.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure it does. The package didn't even exist in r60.
but if the function has been renamed, it might be worth a mention. see the doc
-rob
Issue 5671061: code review 5671061: net/url: Rename ParseWithReference to ParseWithFragment.
(Closed)
Created 13 years, 1 month ago by dsymonds
Modified 13 years, 1 month ago
Reviewers:
Base URL:
Comments: 1