The Go language specification states that the package import path is an opaque token.
The Go language specification states that the package import path is an opaque token. The Go team has decided to interpret that as an opportunity to interpret these tokens as an expression language with the following capabilities: locate packages on the filesystem, locate packages from some specific version control systems, (proposed) control how packages are compiled. My beef with this change is two-fold. First, why is there no specification for the package import path when there is plain, obvious, and necessary information encoded in this opaque token. Second, why is expediency a good justification for including compiler control flags in this undefined, unspecified opaque token. If the package import path is going to be used like this, then it should be standardized in the language specification.
Posted by politician on Jun 26, 2014, 5:31 PM
Tags
Related issues
- I guarantee it's a convenience feature.
- That isn't really relevant for the tool starting the container.
- Why is there no link to the source?
- Something I wonder about in this domain is if this is the fault of the language.
- Namespace pollution is an annoying problem in Rust.
- Currently, no language ports of Timefold Solver are planned.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,500 issues0 comments
hackernews (Software)
I guarantee it's a convenience feature.
NewThat isn't really relevant for the tool starting the container.
Why is there no link to the source?
Something I wonder about in this domain is if this is the fault of the language.
Namespace pollution is an annoying problem in Rust.
Currently, no language ports of Timefold Solver are planned.
I agree with you, almost all .NET code I write is within the .NET framework, yet when I look at C# repos, it's disheartening to see so ma...
Why is there no simple workaround for this?
The Go language specification states that the package import path is an opaque token.
The Go language specification states that the package import path is an opaque token. The Go team has decided to interpret that as an opportunity to interpret these tokens as an expression language with the following capabilities: locate packages on the filesystem, locate packages from some specific version control systems, (proposed) control how packages are compiled. My beef with this change is two-fold. First, why is there no specification for the package import path when there is plain, obvious, and necessary information encoded in this opaque token. Second, why is expediency a good justification for including compiler control flags in this undefined, unspecified opaque token. If the package import path is going to be used like this, then it should be standardized in the language specification.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.