Hacktoberfest 2026：メンテナが10月に向けて印を付けた、オープンで初心者向けの issue。 Hacktoberfest の issue を見る

Go encapsulation counts every lowercase symbol: 72% of a Go DOOM port lands in the encapsulation archetypes (C original 2%)

クローズ
  • 何か問題がありますか？
#5,897 コメント 1 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
初心者へのやさしさ
25/100
issue の種類
バグ
明瞭さ
おおむね明確
活発さ
活発
技術スタック
go, python, rust
領域
tooling

調査の方向性

Start with the Go encapsulation patterns in go.py and find their tests and goldens; use the supplied package main fixture to check that lowercase declarations produce no hits, then compare with a library-package case. Re-measure gore and inspect the Rust rule against the visibility question. Done means the acceptance checks pass, the archetype share is reported, and the rosetta expectations and goldens are updated with the drift explained.

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

claim:nyx scope:core

Finding (DOOM study calibration, #5620)

Go's encapsulation rule counts every lowercase top-level symbol (go.py: ^func\s+(?:\([^)]*\)\s+)?[a-z]… and ^(type|var|const)\s+[a-z]…). keyword-rosetta ledgers this as intended visibility morphology (visibility-morphology-encapsulation, engine-semantic, validated 2026-08-31) and warns that "cross-language encapsulation comparisons must expect these to run structurally hot". On real translated code the effect is no longer a footnote. It decides the function archetypes the engine reports for Go.

Measurements at engine 9f213ab83, licensed DOOM ports, functions of at least 3 lines:

port language functions with an encapsulation hit hits / 100 LOC in the two encapsulation archetypes¹ Compute Cores
linuxdoom (original) C 5% 0.21 1.9% 34.3%
doom-scheme (translation) Scheme n/a n/a 1.5% 34.2%
gore (translation) Go 94% 3.09 71.8% 4.3%
dartdoom (translation) Dart 37% 1.54 31.3% 20.3%

¹ Encapsulated Accessors + Stateful Encapsulated Methods (k=14 function model).

gore keeps linuxdoom's call wiring (77% of linuxdoom's calls survive between the corresponding functions; structural-fingerprint-scanner subway maps, population-analyses examples/doom/), so the algorithm is the same. Yet nearly three quarters of its functions, renderer and playsim included, are labelled as encapsulation archetypes. Seven of gore's nine package clauses are package main, and 950 of its 1,025 func declarations are lowercase. In a main package nothing can be imported, so a lowercase name is not a visibility decision at all. The keyword-rosetta control shows the same skew on the identical planted program: def_encapsulation C 0, Java 0, Dart 0, C++ 0, Go 3.75, Rust 3.

Fixture (our own code, not from any port):

package main

func renderColumn(x int) int { // lowercase: counted as encapsulation today
	return x * 2
}

func main() {
	renderColumn(3)
}

Options

  1. Rule: in a package main file, lowercase declarations carry no visibility meaning, so don't count them. Optionally count only unexported methods and types in library packages. This is the smallest semantic fix.
  2. Model: keep the rule, but have the function-archetype classifier down-weight def_encapsulation for languages ledgered under visibility morphology (go, perl, and rust if confirmed), so the archetype labels stop tracking spelling.
  3. Leave it: document in the archetype docs that Go archetype mixes are not comparable with other languages.

Recommendation: option 1, which stays faithful to the ledger's "correct morphology" (library packages still count), then re-measure. If Go archetype mixes still diverge on translations that keep the original's wiring, do option 2 as well. Check Rust's rule against the same question (rosetta 3 vs 0).

Acceptance

  • The fixture above: 0 encapsulation hits in package main; a library-package variant still counts its unexported functions (test).
  • gore's encapsulation-archetype share re-measured and posted here (target: within ~10 points of the C original's, or the residual explained).
  • keyword-rosetta visibility-morphology-encapsulation updated (Go expected counts re-locked), and goldens re-blessed with the drift explained.

Part of #5457; calibration finding for #5620. Data: structural-fingerprint-scanner per-subsystem view (gitgalaxy-population-analyses PR #19).

主要言語
Python
スター
57
フォーク
11
平均マージ
1時間 15分
マージ済み PR（30日）
976

環境構築

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

squid-protocol/gitgalaxy のほかの issue

squid-protocol/gitgalaxy の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Python の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。