From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za (Lucio De Re) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 19:58:15 +0200 Subject: [9fans] Go Plan 9 In-Reply-To: References: <033fb4bad1a5301dc98a6c7610c48bd9@ladd.quanstro.net> <20110403145714.GF1805@fangle.proxima.alt.za> Message-ID: <20110403175815.GH1805@fangle.proxima.alt.za> Topicbox-Message-UUID: c6e265da-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 01:43:53PM -0400, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > > Does -fplan9-extensions not do that? Its in the latest gcc for gccgo... That would be great. I don't even pretend to keep track of what the GCC group does, I guess I owe you thanks for correcting me. If that's how one goes about finding these things out, well, it's not pretty, but it works. And in passing that grants me the option to drop unwanted argument names in the Go sources, but will the Go developers follow suit? Have they already done so? I think I have enough evidence to track down most if not all instances. ++L