code review 5307080: builtin: document built-in error type

builtin: document built-in error type

[adg, 2011-11-02 04:42:34]

Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change to
https://go.googlecode.com/hg/

[dsymonds, 2011-11-02 04:53:37]

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.

[adg, 2011-11-02 04:57:25]

I think it warrants inclusion. Happy to hear other opinions.

[r, 2011-11-02 05:09:23]

http://codereview.appspot.com/5307080/diff/4/src/pkg/builtin/builtin.go
File src/pkg/builtin/builtin.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5307080/diff/4/src/pkg/builtin/builtin.go#newcode6
src/pkg/builtin/builtin.go:6: Package builtin provides documentation for Go's
built-in functions.
functions and facilities?

http://codereview.appspot.com/5307080/diff/4/src/pkg/builtin/builtin.go#newcode7
src/pkg/builtin/builtin.go:7: The functions documented here are not actually in
package builtin
s/functions/items/

http://codereview.appspot.com/5307080/diff/4/src/pkg/builtin/builtin.go#newcode9
src/pkg/builtin/builtin.go:9: for the language's special functions.
s/functions/identifiers.

[adg, 2011-11-02 05:19:37]

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." ?

[r, 2011-11-02 05:55:18]

LGTM

[adg, 2011-11-02 06:03:42]

*** 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

[rsc, 2011-11-02 12:44:04]

what about int, uint, byte, rune, uintptr?

[rog, 2011-11-02 13:27:23]

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?

[adg, 2011-11-02 22:58:32]

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?
>

[bradfitz, 2011-11-02 23:00:11]

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?
> >
>

[r2, 2011-11-02 23:04:51]

On Nov 2, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:

> OTOH, type int is an int...

it certainly behaves like one.

-rob

[bradfitz, 2011-11-02 23:07:32]

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.

[illia1991nabatov, 2020-10-08 12:48:10]

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?
> > >
> >