So you've defined idiomatic Go code in your own way, that no one else's definitions match with, such that no idiomatic Go code actually exists. If no idiomatic Go code exists, then it's definitionally true that all idiomatic Go code is without flaws, but I don't agree with your personalized definition of idiomatic Go in the first place.
>That may be true, but of no relevance.
So you agree with this, and it rebuts the entire contents of the first post I responded to. I wonder why you were posting irrelevant, off-topic content yourself. But I'm glad you finally agree that Go isn't flawless.
>That may be true, but of no relevance.
So you agree with this, and it rebuts the entire contents of the first post I responded to. I wonder why you were posting irrelevant, off-topic content yourself. But I'm glad you finally agree that Go isn't flawless.