godoc for built-in functions?
256 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan Adkins
May 26, 2011, 1:24:47 PM5/26/11
to golang-nuts
This morning, I wanted to look up the documentation for copy, so I
typed "godoc copy" into my terminal, which obviously didn't work.
Eventually I found what I was looking for in the language spec, but I
wish godoc could answer my simple questions about built-in functions
like what's their signature, or how do I use them.
typed "godoc copy" into my terminal, which obviously didn't work.
Eventually I found what I was looking for in the language spec, but I
wish godoc could answer my simple questions about built-in functions
like what's their signature, or how do I use them.
-Dan
Steven
May 26, 2011, 1:44:08 PM5/26/11
to Dan Adkins, golang-nuts
What if I had a package called copy? It would be perfectly legal, if
ill-advised. Maybe godoc runtime copy, but that might clach with the C
function. godoc -builtin copy? Anyways, godoc is for package
documentation. You should look in the language spec for information
about built-ins. I'm not sure that having godoc cover do too many
tricks is such a good idea...
Jan Mercl
May 26, 2011, 1:45:20 PM5/26/11
to golan...@googlegroups.com
-1. Godoc has no knowledge of "things" not found in Go source files. Otherwise it may become a (probably unusable) silver bullet with language specs, FAQ, etc. ad send mail ;)
andrey mirtchovski
May 26, 2011, 1:48:37 PM5/26/11
to Steven, Dan Adkins, golang-nuts
one could have a stub "builtin" package with just the documentation
for those functions. the package need not be compiled. that would
allow builtins to be found through golang.org/pkg/builtin too.
for those functions. the package need not be compiled. that would
allow builtins to be found through golang.org/pkg/builtin too.
at any rate, those are but a handful and I doubt anyone paying more
than a cursory glance to the language would have trouble remembering
them.
Dan Adkins
May 26, 2011, 1:59:49 PM5/26/11
to golang-nuts
Silly me for wanting stuff to be convenient and *just work*. I think
godoc is wonderful. I wish it were as easy to lookup documentation
about built-in functions. That is all.
godoc is wonderful. I wish it were as easy to lookup documentation
about built-in functions. That is all.
-Dan
Anschel Schaffer-Cohen
May 26, 2011, 2:07:27 PM5/26/11
to golan...@googlegroups.com
Well, godoc -http serves all the Go documentation, including the FAQ, specification, etc.
Anschel Schaffer-Cohen
May 26, 2011, 2:11:28 PM5/26/11
to golan...@googlegroups.com
The problem, as I see it, is that copy doesn't have a signature, in the Go sense. It's more generic than Go's type system can handle (since it works with strings, slices, arrays, etc.). That's why it's built-in in the first place.
Rob 'Commander' Pike
May 26, 2011, 5:21:05 PM5/26/11
to golan...@googlegroups.com
This is just an oversight. See
godoc unsafe
There should probably something like
godoc builtin
although not necessarily with that name.
godoc unsafe
There should probably something like
godoc builtin
although not necessarily with that name.
-rob
Dmitry Chestnykh
May 26, 2011, 5:23:31 PM5/26/11
to golan...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages