Then although I agree, I'm still not sure I follow.
> It does not [support chained comparisons], so the argument is very much valid.
Was your comment to the effect of "although Go does not support chained comparisons, it is syntactically valid for a comparison operator to be passed the result of a comparison so the issue can still arise"?
That's valid, but I would have expected "but" in place of "so".
(sorry if it seems I'm picking nits; I'm just trying to understand and explaining my attempts)
https://play.golang.org/p/NQL1rVp-wVC -- it's trying to interpret that as (1<2)<3, and the types make no sense for that.