-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
cmd/go: actually allow "go run" without any arguments nor flags #36235
Comments
This got pretty much all positive feedback and no complaints, so we agreed with @bcmills to just move it to a regular issue to be fixed. |
Change https://golang.org/cl/342389 mentions this issue: |
Please don't do this. It seems like a good idea, and then the very next thing someone wants to do is pass a single argument, whether a flag or not, and it all breaks. |
If
|
That's fair. It's been some time since I filed this, and I feel less strongly about it now. We now also have
I think we should still do this, though. We have an accepted and closed proposal titled |
I've retitled the other issue, closing this one as we're not doing it |
@seankhliao is there a link to the other one? |
#22726 was accepted and implemented a while ago. I'm really happy with it, because
go run .
is pretty useful.I also understand the point that @rsc brought up about ambiguous flags. Not accepting
go run -foo
is reasonable, instead forcing the user to writego run -foo .
orgo run . -foo
to clarify if the flag is for the Go tool or for the main package.However, I don't quite undrestand why
go run
without any flags or arguments was left out:The only reason I can think of is consistency, to make
go run
always require file or package arguments. Still, I'd argue that this form alone should be allowed. It's pretty convenient, and we could simply point the user in the right direction if they try to add a flag alone:This would also actually mark the original proposal as implemented. I was pretty confused that the original proposal was accepted and closed, while the very idea in the title was never implemented.
At the very least, if this proposal is rejected, I think the original proposal should be retitled.
/cc @myitcv @rogpeppe @broady @rsc
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: