code review 68150046: spec: clarify default "true" condition/tag in for/switc...

spec: clarify default "true" condition/tag in for/switch statements

An absent condition/tag in for and switch statements is equivalent
to the predeclared constant true; not simply the expression true
(which might lead to a locally defined true).

Not a language change.

Fixes issue 7404.

[gri, 2014-02-25 03:32:41]

Hello r@golang.org, iant@golang.org, rsc@golang.org, ken@golang.org (cc:
golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change to
https://code.google.com/p/go

[iant, 2014-02-25 03:59:37]

LGTM

[r, 2014-02-25 07:11:07]

https://codereview.appspot.com/68150046/diff/40001/doc/go_spec.html
File doc/go_spec.html (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/68150046/diff/40001/doc/go_spec.html#newcode4463
doc/go_spec.html:4463: <code>true</code>.
I would just say boolean value true. Why name the thing that holds the idea when
you can just use the idea?

Same for the other appearances.

[gri, 2014-02-25 17:00:35]

PTAL


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:11 PM, <r@golang.org> wrote:

>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/68150046/diff/40001/doc/go_spec.html
> File doc/go_spec.html (right):
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/68150046/diff/40001/doc/
> go_spec.html#newcode4463
> doc/go_spec.html:4463: <code>true</code>.
> I would just say boolean value true. Why name the thing that holds the
> idea when you can just use the idea?
>
> Same for the other appearances.
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/68150046/
>

[r, 2014-02-25 17:12:12]

LGTM

[gri, 2014-02-25 17:13:41]

*** Submitted as https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=838ade034dc6 ***

spec: clarify default "true" condition/tag in for/switch statements

An absent condition/tag in for and switch statements is equivalent
to the predeclared constant true; not simply the expression true
(which might lead to a locally defined true).

Not a language change.

Fixes issue 7404.

LGTM=iant, r
R=r, iant, rsc, ken
CC=golang-codereviews
https://codereview.appspot.com/68150046

[gobot, 2014-02-25 17:27:29]

This CL appears to have broken the windows-386-ec2 builder.