code review 6570062: go.net/ipv4: Disable an example.

go.net/ipv4: Disable an example.

This is an example that isn't executed normally anyway
because the function has arguments. Adding an underscore prefix
makes it easier to exclude it from automated tools.

[dsymonds, 2012-09-28 05:18:01]

Hello adg (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change to
https://code.google.com/p/go.net

[r, 2012-09-28 06:58:49]

LGTM

probably worth discussing how to do this, but LGTM for now

[dave_cheney.net, 2012-09-28 07:00:27]

LGTM I guess.

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM,  <r@golang.org> wrote:
> LGTM
>
> probably worth discussing how to do this, but LGTM for now
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/6570062/

[dsymonds, 2012-09-28 07:05:09]

*** Submitted as
http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=e0dab2e41c13&repo=net ***

go.net/ipv4: Disable an example.

This is an example that isn't executed normally anyway
because the function has arguments. Adding an underscore prefix
makes it easier to exclude it from automated tools.

R=adg, r, dave
CC=golang-dev
http://codereview.appspot.com/6570062

[adg, 2012-09-28 17:43:34]

This is weird. Why does the example have arguments, anyway?

[mikio, 2012-09-28 23:00:23]

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> wrote:

> Why does the example have arguments, anyway?

well, testing doc doesn't say don't do that, or I missed
such limitation.

[adg, 2012-10-01 22:55:52]

On 29 September 2012 09:00, Mikio Hara <mikioh.mikioh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> wrote:
>
>> Why does the example have arguments, anyway?
>
> well, testing doc doesn't say don't do that, or I missed
> such limitation.

I guess I never thought anyone would do that. I'm surprised the tests
still pass generally. I think that 'go test' just ignores such
examples

[mikio, 2012-10-02 04:11:13]

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Andrew Gerrand <adg@golang.org> wrote:

> I guess I never thought anyone would do that.

hooray!

> I'm surprised the tests still pass generally.
> I think that 'go test' just ignores such examples

I will rewrite that example for safety, thanks.