Check for io.Writer
#81
Conversation
|
@mattn Can you review this? |
|
@cardil You have a typo in filenames: Please fix the typo and |
| return false | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| type filelike interface { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use a type alias to avoid defining a real type:
| type filelike interface { | |
| type filelike = interface { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Definitely can do it. I'm just wondering why? The type is private, so what's the point?
|
|
||
| func TestIsWriterTerminal(t *testing.T) { | ||
| // test for non-panic | ||
| isatty.IsWriterTerminal(os.Stdout) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Log test result:
| isatty.IsWriterTerminal(os.Stdout) | |
| t.Log("os.Stdout:", isatty.IsWriterTerminal(os.Stdout)) |
|
|
||
| func TestIsWriterCygwinTerminal(t *testing.T) { | ||
| // test for non-panic | ||
| isatty.IsWriterCygwinTerminal(os.Stdout) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Log test result:
| isatty.IsWriterCygwinTerminal(os.Stdout) | |
| t.Log("os.Stdout:", isatty.IsWriterCygwinTerminal(os.Stdout)) |
|
I think it would be helpful to add the symetric support for |
I can file another PR for that |
|
Yes, maybe. That doesn't mean we need to have that in single PR.
There's no reason to add those at the same time? Why? It's a new API, that I'm proposing here, so why would be need to add additional features to this PR. I rather have separate, smaller PRs, that can ve reviewed independently. |
|
My point is that new API for io.Writer and io.Reader are NOT independent. Consistency matters. |
|
Anyway, I'm fully against this feature as I explained here: #80 (comment) |
Fixes #80