Per the post, it sounds like this is most effective in closed-ecosystem internal monorepo-like contexts where an organisation has control over every instance of client code & can `go fix` all of the call sites to completely eradicate all usage of a deprecated APIs:
> For many years now, our Google colleagues on the teams supporting Java, Kotlin, and C++ have been using source-level inliner tools like this. To date, these tools have eliminated millions of calls to deprecated functions in Google’s code base. Users simply add the directives, and wait. During the night, robots quietly prepare, test, and submit batches of code changes across a monorepo of billions of lines of code. If all goes well, by the morning the old code is no longer in use and can be safely deleted. Go’s inliner is a relative newcomer, but it has already been used to prepare more than 18,000 changelists to Google’s monorepo.
It could still have some incremental benefit for public APIs where client code is not under centralised control, but would not allow deprecated APIs to be removed without breakage.
> Go designers distinguish between Go language as defined by Go spec and implementation details. > //go:fix is something understood by a particular implementation of Go. Another implementation could implement Go without implementing support for //go:fix and it would be a fully compliant implementation of Go, the language. > > If they made it part of the syntax, that would require other implementations to implement it.
...I'm not sure I buy that argument TBH.
"If they made it part of the syntax, that would require other implementations to implement it." ... I mean, so what? Has golang stopped ading new features to the spec? If not (which I guess so), then how is this any different? Unless you have freezed the language, this reasoning doesn't make sense to me.
//go:fix is something understood by a particular implementation of Go. Another implementation could implement Go without implementing support for //go:fix and it would be a fully compliant implementation of Go, the language.
If they made it part of the syntax, that would require other implementations to implement it.
I keep being impressed at subtle but meaningful things that Go does right.
The reason it feels like a kludge is that "comments" are normally understood to be non-impactful. Is a source transformation that removes all comments valid? If comments have no impact per the spec, yes. But that's not the case here.
In practice comments in go are defined to be able to carry semantic meaning extensibly. Whether they're safe to ignore depends on what meaning is given to the directives, e.g. conditional compilation directives.
It's certainly done in many places. JsDoc is the biggest example I can think of. But they're all walking the line of "this doesn't have an impact, except when it does".
It being done by the language owners just makes them the ones walking the line.
In practice, the Go language developers carved syntax out of comments, so that a comment is "anything that starts with //, unless the next characters are go:"
https://go.dev/blog/inliner#example-fixing-api-design-flaws
So these comments carry more weight than how those comment annotations might be consumed by optional tools for other languages.
For most of the listed examples, I think the corresponding C annotation would have been "[[deprecated]]", which has been added to the syntax as of C23.
Things like "//go:embed" and "//go:build" very much do change the semantics of source code.
The comments above 'import "C"' containing C function definitions and imports change the compilation of go source code.
The "//go" comments contain a mix of ones that must be respected to compile, to being optional, to being entirely ignorable (like generate and fix).
This is not inlining in the compiler. It's a directive to a source transformation (refactoring) tool. So yes, this has no impact on the code. It will do things if you run `go fix` on your codebase, otherwise it won't.
By making them comments, Go subtly signals that these are exceptional, making them less prominent and harder to abuse.
For other things, like `//go:noinline`, this is fair criticism. `//go:fix inline` is quite different in every way.
(My personal theory is that early go had a somewhat misguided idea of simplicity, and preferred overloading existing concepts with special cases over introducing new keywords. Capitalization for visibility is another example of that.)
(Though for the record, talking about alternative implementations when discussing Go is kind of a funny joke.)
package main
//go:fix inline
func handle() {
recover()
}
func foo() {
handle()
}
func main() {
defer foo()
panic("bye")
}Yes, maybe some code uses recover() to check if its being called as a panic handler, and perhaps `go fix` should add a check for this ("error: function to be inlined calls recover()"), but this isn't a particularly common footgun.
This is an impossible task. For a library function, you can't know whether or not the function is defer called.
Maybe this is not an important problem. But it would be better if the blog article mentions this.
It is just a demo.
package main
import "unsafe"
//go:fix inline
func foo[T any]() {
var t T
_ = 1 / unsafe.Sizeof(t)
}
func main() {
foo[struct{}]()
}
package main
type T = [8]byte
var a T
//go:fix inline
func foo() T {
return T{}
}
func main() {
if foo() == a {
}
}
package main
//go:fix inline
func foo[T [8]byte | [4]uint16]() {
var v T
var n byte = 1 << len(v) >> len(v)
if n == 0 {
println("T is [8]byte")
} else {
println("T is [4]uint16]")
}
}
func main() {
foo[[8]byte]()
}There was even a more upvoted post between your triple dupe and this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47347322 #scp