LGTM but check with iant On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:59 PM, rsc@golang.org wrote: > ...
13 years, 11 months ago
(2010-04-14 01:46:45 UTC)
#2
LGTM but check with iant
On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:59 PM, rsc@golang.org wrote:
> Reviewers: r,
>
> Message:
> Hello r (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),
>
> I'd like you to review this change.
>
>
> Description:
> go_spec updates
>
> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/921041/show
>
> Affected files:
> M doc/go_spec.html
>
>
> Index: doc/go_spec.html
> ===================================================================
> --- a/doc/go_spec.html
> +++ b/doc/go_spec.html
> @@ -5111,9 +5111,9 @@
> <ul>
> <li><span class="alert">Implementation does not honor the
> restriction on goto statements and targets (no intervening
> declarations).</span></li>
> <li><span class="alert">Method expressions are partially
> implemented.</span></li>
> - <li><span class="alert">Gccgo allows only one init() function per
> source file.</span></li>
> - <li><span class="alert">Deferred functions cannot access the
> surrounding function's result parameters.</span></li>
> - <li><span class="alert">Function results are not addressable in
> gccgo.</span></li>
> - <li><span class="alert">Recover is not implemented.</span></li>
> - <li><span class="alert">The implemented version of panic differs
> from its specification.</span></li>
> -</ul>
> + <li><span class="alert">Gccgo: allows only one init() function per
> source file.</span></li>
> + <li><span class="alert">Gccgo: Deferred functions cannot access
> the surrounding function's result parameters.</span></li>
> + <li><span class="alert">Gccgo: Function results are not
> addressable.</span></li>
> + <li><span class="alert">Gccgo: Recover is not implemented.</span></
> li>
> + <li><span class="alert">Gccgo: The implemented version of panic
> differs from its specification.</span></li>
> +</ul>
>
>
Issue 921041: code review 921041: go_spec updates
(Closed)
Created 13 years, 11 months ago by rsc
Modified 13 years, 11 months ago
Reviewers:
Base URL:
Comments: 0