false negative about unparam HOT 5 CLOSED

Hm. You could call it a false negative, but the tool is pretty conservative when a function's signature is fixed by the code. I would say this is working as intended. Imagine:

http.HandleFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    fmt.Fprintln(w, "Hello world!")
})

If we implement your idea, this would be a warning, because r is unused. However, having to rename the request would be cumbersome and make the code less consistent with other http handler funcs:

http.HandleFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, _ *http.Request) {
    fmt.Fprintln(w, "Hello world!")
})

The aim of the tool is not to flag parameters which could lose their names - the aim is to find parameters that could be removed entirely. That's pretty well summarised by "unused", I think. In a way, your parameter is used - to satisfy a function signature.

from unparam.

I see your point. However I would argue that parameter names are actually not part of the function signature. The signature is defined by the types only. If the variable is not used I really prefer _ or omitting since it documents that the function is not using it. Hope that argument makes sense

from unparam.

Yeah, that makes sense, but that feels like personal preference more than anything. A linter that tells you what parameters could be named _ could exist, but that linter isn't unparam, because it does something quite different :)

from unparam.

from unparam.

I would say not. The feature you want is pretty easy to write as a separate linter, so it doesn't really benefit from being here.

from unparam.