Naming a receiver argument should not make fields and methods in scope #16
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…cope Sometimes the docs use the receiver argument's fields without the receiver name, I think this should be allowed but only when no name is given. This allows the programmer not to worry about name collisions (when the receiver is named) which can be confusing. It also seems unnecessary to name the receiver if the fields/methods are not called through that name.
|
Closing this because sometimes a name is needed, and when the programmer realizes this it would be annoying to have to audit the whole method and add in |
|
It should be |
spaceface777
pushed a commit
to spaceface777/v
that referenced
this pull request
May 3, 2022
definitions: support condition variables
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Sometimes the docs use the receiver argument's fields without the receiver name. I think this should be allowed but only when no name is given. When the receiver is named the programmer then need not think about name collisions which can be confusing. It also seems unnecessary to name the receiver if the fields/methods are not called through that name.
This change conflicts with my PR #13, but that will need updating anyway if this pull is accepted.