not particularly relevant to the rest of the article, but the very first line asserts that the name of the language is “golang” which annoys me to no end.
I feel like it is very relevant to the article because it shows that they are not aware of the name of the language and that they are not engaged with the community.
Interesting. It seems to me a good way to make this less common might be to write a tool that adds comments like // captures: a, b, c before any closures it analyzes. Of course, it has to be kept in sync, but it would make it clear when you’re accidentally including something you don’t mean to capture.
On a similar note, I’ve often wondered how Rust would look if it made all moves explicit. I think they might have experimented with that back in the early days.
not particularly relevant to the rest of the article, but the very first line asserts that the name of the language is “golang” which annoys me to no end.
I feel like it is very relevant to the article because it shows that they are not aware of the name of the language and that they are not engaged with the community.
Interesting. It seems to me a good way to make this less common might be to write a tool that adds comments like
// captures: a, b, cbefore any closures it analyzes. Of course, it has to be kept in sync, but it would make it clear when you’re accidentally including something you don’t mean to capture.On a similar note, I’ve often wondered how Rust would look if it made all moves explicit. I think they might have experimented with that back in the early days.
Would only copies then be implicit?