How to Idiomatically Implement Generators in Go?

Idiomatic Implementation of Generators in Go

What is the idiomatic way to implement generators like this?

Using a function value as a consumer is a more idiomatic approach compared to using goroutines and channels for generator implementations. This method allows for a cleaner codebase, enables the return of values indicating actions, and can handle both local and non-local consumer functions.

Who should be responsible for closing the channel - the library function or the caller?

Ideally, the generator function is responsible for closing the channel. This ensures that the channel is closed in a controlled manner, preventing leaks and potential panics for the consumer.

Is it advisable to modify the library function to force the caller to close the channel?

Modifying the library function to force the caller to close the channel complicates the API. While it may prevent potential misuse, it's not the most idiomatic approach and could lead to confusion for callers.

Potential Negative Side-Effects of Closing a Channel After the Generator Panics

Closing a channel after the generator panics does not cause any immediate observable effects. However, it's considered bad practice and can lead to unintended consequences in future maintenance or revisions of the code.

Idiomatic Way to Restrict the Generator Function to Send Only

To restrict the generator function to send-only, the channel type should be declared as <-chan []string in the function signature. However, as the generator function is responsible for closing the channel, it cannot be receive-only. One solution is to use a second channel for signaling purposes, allowing the consumer to signal termination or other events to the generator.

The above is the detailed content of How to Idiomatically Implement Generators in Go?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!