|
|
|
|
|
by jppittma
1040 days ago
|
|
Aren't we talking about standardizing iterators? That makes the compiler slightly more complex, I guess, but for the language it makes it much easier to read and more approachable imo. That's the reason that range exists in the first place. I don't see why the author's implimentation is so complicated. I really just want an interface that works with the range operator, and to call it a day. type Iterable[T any] interface {
Next() (T, bool)
}
so that for _, el := range someIterable {
}
is essentially the same as for el, ok := someIterable.Next(); ok; el, ok := someIterable.Next() {
}
I certainly think the first is more clear btw. |
|