Was this proposed change discussed anywhere? Is there a reference issue? Or you are proposing the change now, here, and it needs discussion?

There is no other ticket or discussion associated with the PR changeset.

cc @ianlancetaylor @bradfitz

Sorry, we can't look at patches that are sent as PRs, without CLAs on file. Gerrit enforces CLAs.

Please describe the problem in English and we can decide whether somebody can fix the problem independently.

Or submit it via Gerrit.

Or wait for us to start accepting GitHub PRs, soonish. (with the Google CLA bot)

@bradfitz I have signed the CLA a while ago (via the Google CLA bot) and Gerrit lists it under "Agreements".

@Androbin What is the problem? Please tell us the problem first, then the solution. Thanks.

The script unix/mkerrors.sh contains both

• inlined C code, mostly - but not limited to - includes
• Shell code, generating Go code

I have extracted the former into separate files.
The refactoring is supposed to separate concerns.
This also makes both of these easier to change.

@ianlancetaylor I have described this in the firstmost comment of the PR.

The script unix/mkerrors.sh contains both

• inlined C code, mostly - but not limited to - includes
• Shell code, generating Go code

I don't quite see a problem with that. FWIW I find it convenient to have the C code inlined in mkerrors.sh as the changes usually consist of adding a header and adjusting the regex in the same file. Splitting them out would mean having to remember to edit one (or even several) more files for each added/changed constant.

This doesn't seem to be solving a real problem. Why do you want to do this?

As I said, I thought it would be more convenient to have them separated.
Since this doesn't seem to be the case here, I'm abandoning this suggestion.