We thought it would at the time, but then Beta 4 changed the ABI
again, so it wasn't true in practice.
Fixes#17643
Change-Id: I36b747bd69a56adc7291fa30d6bffdf67ab8741b
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/32238
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
As agreed upon by the Code of Conduct working group, "race" may refer to
an attempt to classify people based on "defining characteristics",
regardless of how this people view themselves, while "ethnicity" refers
to how people identify themselves.
The Code of Conduct working group believes that the term "ethnicity"
will be more comprehensive and inclusive, and will better serve the Go
community.
Change-Id: I724b72cadb8cf29b4bac8f83017b0303feae3c94
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/32133
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
For some reason git won't let me write
doc/effective_go.html: reword confusing sentence
or even
doc/effective_go: reword confusing sentence
as the subject line for this CL, but that's not important. The
actual CL just rewrites one sentence and adds an option to grep in
the associated example.
Fixes#15875
Change-Id: Iee159ea751caf4b73eacf3dfc86e29032646373f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/32110
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
A 16bit binary exponent permits a constant range covering roughly the range
from 7e-9865 to 7e9863 which is more than enough for any practical and
hypothetical constant arithmetic.
Furthermore, until recently cmd/compile could not handle very large exponents
correctly anyway; i.e., the chance that any real programs (but for tests that
explore corner cases) are affected are close to zero.
Finally, restricting the minimum supported range significantly reduces the
implementation complexity in an area that hardly matters in reality for new
or alternative spec-compliant implementations that don't or cannot rely on
pre-existing arbitratry precision arithmetic packages that support a 32bit
exponent range.
This is technically a language change but for the reasons mentioned above
this is unlikely to affect any real programs, and certainly not programs
compiled with the gc or gccgo compilers as they currently support up to
32bit exponents.
Fixes#13572.
Change-Id: I970f919c57fc82c0175844364cf48ea335f17d39
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/17711
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
This clarifies some of the titles so they're more "news" friendly and
less implementation-oriented.
Change-Id: Ied02aa1e6824b04db5d32ecdd58e972515b1f588
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/29830
Reviewed-by: Rick Hudson <rlh@golang.org>
With help of a new interactive commit classifier tool (tool location
TBD, likely x/build/cmd/writenotes), classify all commits from go1.7
up to 56d35d4.
We can selectively cull this list later. When in doubt, I erred on the
side of inclusion for now.
Change-Id: I458945004e1b1a148fb2f294b454a390ef4f92c2
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30696
Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
This simply documents the status quo accepted by cmd/compile, gccgo,
and go/types. The new language matches the language used for indices
of index expressions for arrays and slices.
Fixes#16679.
Change-Id: I65447889fbda9d222f2a9e6c10334d1b38c555f0
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30474
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
This is a backwards-compatible language change.
Per the proposal (#16085), the rules for conversions are relaxed
such that struct tags in any of the structs involved in the conversion
are ignored (recursively).
Because this is loosening the existing rules, code that compiled so
far will continue to compile.
For #16085.
Fixes#6858.
Change-Id: I0feef651582db5f23046a2331fc3f179ae577c45
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/24190
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>
Effective Go has references to a function call f(c, req) made by ServeHTTP mixed with f(w,
req). c is dropped in favor of w to maintain consistency
Fixes#17128
Change-Id: I6746fd115ed5a58971fd24e54024d29d18ead1fa
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/29311
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
The download page says "OS X 10.8 or later", but other pages said 10.7.
Say 10.8 everywhere.
Turns out Go doesn't even compile on OS X 10.7 (details in bug) and we
only run builders for OS X 10.8+, which is likely why 10.7
regressed. Until recently we only had OS X 10.10 builders, even.
We could run 10.7 builders, but there's basically no reason to do so,
especially with 10.12 coming out imminently.
Fixes#16625
Change-Id: Ida6e20fb6c54aea0a3757235b708ac1c053b8c04
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/28870
Reviewed-by: Chris Broadfoot <cbro@golang.org>
We relay this info in a few places, in a few different ways, but not
consistently everywhere. This led one of our users to start googling
and not find https://golang.org/doc/code.html#Workspaces, of which `go
help gopath` is the most equivalent.
Change-Id: I28a94375739f3aa4f200e145293ca2a5f65101e1
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/28690
Run-TryBot: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
Currently the footnote says "gcc is required only if you plan to use cgo",
but the footnote was referenced from the text:
"use the clang or gcc† that comes with Xcode‡ for cgo support"
That seems to imply that clang doesn't get you cgo support on OS X,
which isn't true. The update text matches what the install-source.html
page says.
Change-Id: Ib88464a0d138227d357033123f6675a77d5d777f
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/28786
Reviewed-by: Minux Ma <minux@golang.org>
See the issue below for details.
Fixes#16794.
Change-Id: I7e338089fd80ddcb634fa80bfc658dee2772361c
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/27356
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
This truly is a common point of confusion that deserves
explanation in the FAQ.
Change-Id: Ie624e31a2042ca99626fe7570d9c8c075aae6a84
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/28275
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
I was confused by the current wording. This wording
answers the question more clearly.
Thanks to Robert Griesemer for suggestions.
Fixes#16916
Change-Id: I50187c8df2db661b9581f4b3c5d5c279d2f9af41
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/28052
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
Recreated original favicon with svg. Note, the rasterizations are hand
tweaked for crispness and straight export will not give the same results.
Fixes#6938
Change-Id: I9bf7b59028711361c29365b145932d90af419b69
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/26850
Reviewed-by: Chris Broadfoot <cbro@golang.org>
The enumerations didn't include the syntactic form where the lhs is
full variable declaration with type specification, as in:
var x, ok T = ...
Fixes#15782.
Change-Id: I0f7bafc37dc9dcf62cdb0894a0d157074ccd4b3e
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/27670
Reviewed-by: Matthew Dempsky <mdempsky@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Rob Pike <r@golang.org>
