This does not fit the remit of this pseudo-package, which is for builtin functions (the ...
9 years, 4 months ago
(2011-11-02 04:53:37 UTC)
#2
This does not fit the remit of this pseudo-package, which is for builtin
functions (the types at the top are exceptional). We don't document other
builtin types here.
PTAL On 2 November 2011 14:09, <r@golang.org> wrote: > Go's built-in functions. > functions and ...
9 years, 4 months ago
(2011-11-02 05:19:37 UTC)
#5
PTAL
On 2 November 2011 14:09, <r@golang.org> wrote:
> Go's built-in functions.
> functions and facilities?
I went with "Go's predeclared identifiers." ?
*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=c0b08c584190 *** builtin: document built-in error type R=golang-dev, dsymonds, r CC=golang-dev http://codereview.appspot.com/5307080
9 years, 4 months ago
(2011-11-02 06:03:42 UTC)
#7
i think they could go in, with appropriate remarks on their size guarantees or constraints. ...
9 years, 4 months ago
(2011-11-02 13:27:23 UTC)
#9
i think they could go in, with appropriate remarks on
their size guarantees or constraints.
how to phrase the type declaration, though?
type int int
perhaps.
On 2 November 2011 08:44, Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> wrote:
> what about int, uint, byte, rune, uintptr?
I think if we want to document the other builtin types we should update godoc ...
9 years, 4 months ago
(2011-11-02 22:58:32 UTC)
#10
I think if we want to document the other builtin types we should update
godoc to present them differently.
type int int // this is confusing
On Thursday, 3 November 2011, roger peppe <rogpeppe@gmail.com> wrote:
> i think they could go in, with appropriate remarks on
> their size guarantees or constraints.
>
> how to phrase the type declaration, though?
>
> type int int
>
> perhaps.
>
> On 2 November 2011 08:44, Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> wrote:
>> what about int, uint, byte, rune, uintptr?
>
OTOH, type int is an int... On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew ...
9 years, 4 months ago
(2011-11-02 23:00:11 UTC)
#11
OTOH, type int is an int...
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> wrote:
> I think if we want to document the other builtin types we should update
> godoc to present them differently.
>
> type int int // this is confusing
>
>
> On Thursday, 3 November 2011, roger peppe <rogpeppe@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i think they could go in, with appropriate remarks on
> > their size guarantees or constraints.
> >
> > how to phrase the type declaration, though?
> >
> > type int int
> >
> > perhaps.
> >
> > On 2 November 2011 08:44, Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> wrote:
> >> what about int, uint, byte, rune, uintptr?
> >
>
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Rob 'Commander' Pike <r@google.com> wrote: > > ...
9 years, 4 months ago
(2011-11-02 23:07:32 UTC)
#13
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Rob 'Commander' Pike <r@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> > OTOH, type int is an int...
>
> it certainly behaves like one.
at least when it's not behaving like its other 4294967295 numbers.
On 2011/11/02 23:00:11, bradfitz wrote:
> OTOH, type int is an int...
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Gerrand <mailto:adg@golang.org> wrote:
>
> > I think if we want to document the other builtin types we should update
> > godoc to present them differently.
> >
> > type int int // this is confusing
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, 3 November 2011, roger peppe <mailto:rogpeppe@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > i think they could go in, with appropriate remarks on
> > > their size guarantees or constraints.
> > >
> > > how to phrase the type declaration, though?
> > >
> > > type int int
> > >
> > > perhaps.
> > >
> > > On 2 November 2011 08:44, Russ Cox <mailto:rsc@golang.org> wrote:
> > >> what about int, uint, byte, rune, uintptr?
> > >
> >
Issue 5307080: code review 5307080: builtin: document built-in error type
(Closed)
Created 9 years, 4 months ago by adg
Modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Reviewers: rsc, rog, bradfitz, r2, illia1991nabatov
Base URL:
Comments: 3