1631-

5 ms·

1.
by 1631- 13y ago
> It's still just a platitude. Poetry is just a pointless distraction. > You can put lipstick on a pig... Was this comment the spoken word in disguise? It sounded a little poetic to me.
2.
by 1631- 13y ago
IANAL, and I am not the one being quoted... with that said, it seems to me that you're reading way too much into that statement, and in the process, more-or-less ignoting the context. To me, what's being implied here is precedent
3.
by 1631- 13y ago
You can't rely on the order of imports initialization anyway. See http://golang.org/ref/spec#Program_execution .. I believe that's also the reason, you shouldn't call `flag.Parse()` in `init()`
4.
by 1631- 13y ago
(I don't seem to be able to reply to your comment directly) danieldk 8 minutes ago | link >> As I've already said to someone else. This is about linking, not compilation. The rest of your comment is irrelevant to this discus
5.
by 1631- 13y ago
> But that is mostly a problem because incremental compiling in C++ is difficult for well-known reasons. Incremental compiling is well-supported in many other languages (e.g. Java) and is usually very fast. So, the issue of compilation t
6.
by 1631- 13y ago
You say that, and yet here we are commenting on a forum? written in a Arc, a language implementation that wasn't strictly required .
7.
by 1631- 13y ago
You could potentially also have an interface that defined methods for all the basic types `interface { AsString() (string, error), etc. }` and then each basic type implements this interface and returns an error if it can't/shouldn
8.
by 1631- 13y ago
1) no comment. 2) This is about the linker , not the compiler . You should compare the compilation times with the linking times instead of making assumptions.