Merge pull request #1189 from chengehe/master

chore: fix the gopls name

Author: jerodsanto

gotime/go-time-140.md

@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ I don't have a good feel right now for the sentiment of the broader Go community
 
 **Jon Calhoun:** So I do have one question on that... Have you guys talked with developers of IDEs or syntax highlighting tools that people use, to see if any of them have feedback on any of this sort of thing? An example is JetBrains - since they have GoLand, I assume that maybe they'd have some feedback on which one is easier to make obvious inside the editor, where people are actually coding... So have you had a chance to talk to people who are developing tools like that, to get their feedback?
 
-**Ian Lance Taylor:** We have talked to the people who have developed the Go Please language plugin... And from their point of view, I don't think it matters that much, because they're just hooking in for the parser, and the parser does support both cases, and the parser is just gonna feed back to them what the code looks like... So they didn't have much trouble adding parentheses support, and they've just recently added square brackets support to Go Please as an experimental thing... So I think at least at that level it hasn't been a problem. We haven't talked to JetBrains, though; that's a good idea.
+**Ian Lance Taylor:** We have talked to the people who have developed the Go Please (gopls) language plugin... And from their point of view, I don't think it matters that much, because they're just hooking in for the parser, and the parser does support both cases, and the parser is just gonna feed back to them what the code looks like... So they didn't have much trouble adding parentheses support, and they've just recently added square brackets support to Go Please as an experimental thing... So I think at least at that level it hasn't been a problem. We haven't talked to JetBrains, though; that's a good idea.
 
 **Carmen Andoh:** So more practically, for the Go community - when do you think that you're going to get enough feedback to move forward with moving from a draft proposal to actually putting it forth as a proposal to change in the language?
 

gotime/go-time-168.md

@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ So I think this is one of those where I think we'd have to do a little bit of a
 
 I don't know how I feel about this one. There are some cases where I feel like it would still be clear enough without specifying the types... But I could see for sure other cases where that gets complicated, too.
 
-**Daniel Martí:** \[32:01\] I agree with Johnny saying that readability and maintainability is also a factor here, and not just typing... And I think Roberto's point is mostly solved by editors and go please these days... So completion; if you're too lazy to type it out, just rely on your editor to do it for you. But I think my stance in all this is that I like the overall idea to repeat types less if it's obvious enough from the local context, but I also think this proposal as is is too broad. If we have catch-all type inference for composite literals, it's gonna be abused and it is gonna hurt maintainability. So I would like to see proposals which are more narrowly-scoped to cases where pretty much everybody agrees the code is better. I actually have a couple of follow-up proposals which are newer, which are a little bit narrowly-scoped.
+**Daniel Martí:** \[32:01\] I agree with Johnny saying that readability and maintainability is also a factor here, and not just typing... And I think Roberto's point is mostly solved by editors and go please (gopls) these days... So completion; if you're too lazy to type it out, just rely on your editor to do it for you. But I think my stance in all this is that I like the overall idea to repeat types less if it's obvious enough from the local context, but I also think this proposal as is is too broad. If we have catch-all type inference for composite literals, it's gonna be abused and it is gonna hurt maintainability. So I would like to see proposals which are more narrowly-scoped to cases where pretty much everybody agrees the code is better. I actually have a couple of follow-up proposals which are newer, which are a little bit narrowly-scoped.
 
 **Mat Ryer:** Yeah, okay. Let's dig into those ones then.
 

gotime/go-time-204.md

@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ If I want to be even more contentious, I might say something about Harry Potter,
 
 **Alice Merrick:** Now I've gotta know how do you pronounce the language server...
 
-**Kris Brandow:** I mean, they told us it's "Go please", so...
+**Kris Brandow:** I mean, they told us it's "Go please" (gopls), so...
 
 **Alice Merrick:** Okay.
 

gotime/go-time-210.md

@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ So the question of governance comes down to "What are the problems we're trying
 
 **Mat Ryer:** Okay, so we've got a fun question coming, and we're gonna do a quick roundtable. You're just gonna say your name, and then just tell me what IDE you use day-to-day, generally. Sameer, what is your IDE?
 
-**Sameer Ajmani:** Google Docs and Gmail. \[laughter\] No, in the rare times that I code, it's VS Code, because I wanna use the team as developing. VS-code id pluggin go please. But it's rare that I get to code. It's sad.
+**Sameer Ajmani:** Google Docs and Gmail. \[laughter\] No, in the rare times that I code, it's VS Code, because I wanna use the team as developing. VS-code id pluggin go please (gopls). But it's rare that I get to code. It's sad.
 
 **Mat Ryer:** Yeah. I should just say, this question came in from BillyDroptables. Billy wants to know what everyone's IDE is. Cameron, do you use an IDE?
 

gotime/go-time-95.md

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ So you talked about the tooling from different sides, you have talked about tool
 
 **Jamal Yusuf:** You know what - the Go tooling team is impressive. I'm blown away. I'm blown away because of so much that's offered for free. In other low-level languages, when you make an IDE or you make a tool, you charge for it; and what the community is willing to give away for free - it boggles my mind. Because there's a lot of work that goes into it, and it's just all for free. There's so much out there that the community gives out and you don't have to pay for. I'm still not used to that. I'll pull some tool down from GitHub and start using it, and I'm like "How is this free again?" \[laughs\] I'm impressed by that.
 
-The conversations I heard after the talk of Go Please, integrating all of the community tools into something from a single binary - that was just amazing. I remember one of the first things I struggled with when I first got up to speed on Go was that you had to run all these commands individually. You had to do a go fmt, get your source code formatted - there's all these steps; and just the fact that you just save a file now and all of that happens behind the scenes is just -- it's cool, it's cool.
+The conversations I heard after the talk of Go Please (gopls), integrating all of the community tools into something from a single binary - that was just amazing. I remember one of the first things I struggled with when I first got up to speed on Go was that you had to run all these commands individually. You had to do a go fmt, get your source code formatted - there's all these steps; and just the fact that you just save a file now and all of that happens behind the scenes is just -- it's cool, it's cool.
 
 I hope we get to the point where our IDEs and our tooling and all that is at the level where we have JavaScript's like emit type functionality where I type two things and hit tab and it becomes a fully-fledged document... That'd be cool. So I hope we get more Go tooling, but I'm impressed already with what's offered on the market for free.