Fixed "Output"- All remaining files

[GabrielNSD]

Replace "Output:" for "=>" in example codes.

Related issue: #2202

[github-actions]

Dear GabrielNSD

Thank you for contributing to the Go track on Exercism! 💙
You will see some automated feedback below 🤖. It would be great if you can make sure your PR covers those points. This will save your reviewer some time and your change can be merged quicker.

• 📜 The following files usually contain very similar content.

  • concepts/<concept>/about.md
  • concepts/<concept>/introduction.md
  • exercises/concept/<exercise>/.docs/introduction.md

  Please check whether the changes you made to one of these also need to be applied to the others.

• ⬆️ The instructions and test cases for many practice exercises originate in the Exercism-wide problem-specifications repo. If the exercise you changed is listed there in the exercises folder, please consider the following.

  • Improvements to the instructions.md file should be made in the problem-spec repo so that all tracks can benefit.
    You can open a PR there instead.
  • If you want to add some language specific information, use the instructions.append.md file (see Practice Exercise Docs).
  • Test cases selected in the .meta/tests.toml file need to be implemented in the <exercise>_test.go file according to the specification in canonical-data.json.

• ✍️ If your PR is not related to an existing issue (and is not self-explaining like a typo fix), please make sure the description explains why the change you made is necessary.

• 🔤 If your PR fixes an easy to identify typo, if would be great if you could check for that typo in the whole repo. For example, if you found Unicdoe, use "replace all" in your editor (or command line magic) to fix it consistently.

Dear Reviewer/Maintainer

• 📏 Make sure you set the appropriate x:size label for the PR. (This also works after merging, in case you forgot about it.)

• 🔍 Don't be too nit-picky. If the PR is a clear improvement compared to the status quo, it should be approved as clear signal this is good to be merged even if the minor comments you might have are not addressed by the contributor. Further improvement ideas can be captured in issues (if important enough) and implemented via additional PRs.

• 🤔 After reviewing the diff in the "Files changed" section, take a moment to think about whether there are changes missing from the diff. Does something need to be adjusted in other places so the code or content stays consistent?

_{Automated comment created by PR Commenter 🤖.}

[andrerfcsantos]

Thanks a lot for taking care of this issue! This is a big one and will be great to keep consistency on the track.

I assume to do this you made a simple substitution from Output: to =>, which is a good starting point, but has some issues:

• The case I pointed out in the suggestion, where output: is part of a paragraph and must not be replaced with =>
• It was agreed upon that if a print statement is present, we should keep using Output: (Format the output of code examples consistently across exercises/concepts #2202). Here's an example:

result := NeedsLicense("car")
fmt.Println(result)
// Output: true

Arguably, the variable here is not needed and it is used just for the print statement, in which case, we can consider removing the print statement entirely and use the => syntax:

NeedsLicense("car")
// => true

So, my suggested changes would be:

• Fix the instance where output: is part of a paragraph.
• For instances where the output follows print statements, either keep using Output: or check if we can remove the print statement/variables and simplify the examples like shown above. For now, I think we can keep using Output: in those situations as it is easier. The simplification of the examples can be a separate issue, as it will require a lot more work and more careful checking of each exercise because the variables and the print statements might be important in some exercises. However, if you want to do that simplification in this PR, go for it and I'll make sure to size it accordingly.

[andrerfcsantos]

The substitution here is not needed

[github-actions]

Hello contributor and thank you for your contribution!
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. Please update the PR when you are able.
If this pull request is waiting on the maintainer, please apply the status/awaiting-maintainer label (and remove the status/awaiting-contributor label).
If no action is taken in the next week, this pull request will be automatically closed.

[andrerfcsantos]

There has been some interest by other contributors in fixing this issue in individual exercises, which is making this PR conflict with the main branch. The conflicts will become even more as new contributors fix this issue in more exercises.

For that reason, and since reproducing this PR can be done easily with a find and replace, I'm going to close this PR.

If you are still interested in solving this issue across all exercises, please create a new PR integrating the feedback in #2223 (review).