gleam-lang
Create gleam-for-go-users guide
This is a first draft and needs some editing and fact checking.
Closes https://github.com/gleam-lang/website/issues/413
Yes, sorry I missed Louis's comments. I'll update sometime this week.
On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:17 PM John Nguyen @.***> wrote:
@gamebox https://github.com/gamebox are you planning on updating this PR?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gleam-lang/website/pull/321#issuecomment-2068409970, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKRCT2MVMSVX5IW25S547DY6R6MVAVCNFSM6AAAAABEM7XYUGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRYGQYDSOJXGA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
isn't it better to use the equivalent/similar example in the Unions section?
@MiniAppleTheApple Well, there really isn't a similar approach unless you mean a struct that has a tag and then contains pointers to structs for all possible "variants" or contains all of the fields relevant to all variants. But I personally think it's more honest to say "This really isn't a thing you would do in Go". Plus, union semantics are just different then either of the two options I described above.
All conversations are resolved, and suggestions merged. Looks like now this should be good for a final review.
@MiniAppleTheApple Well, there really isn't a similar approach unless you mean a struct that has a tag and then contains pointers to structs for all possible "variants" or contains all of the fields relevant to all variants. But I personally think it's more honest to say "This really isn't a thing you would do in Go". Plus, union semantics are just different then either of the two options I described above.
Even though there isn't a 100% similar way, you can still approximate both example code as close as possible. I will give a suggestion later.