> If you want to make it possible, it's pretty easy:
Thank you for fifth copy of almost same code. I clearly have no enough
experience to use close of channel and `sync.Once`.
Do you really think so?
> There's another idiom I quite like for futures (when there's only one
possible source of the value) putting the value back after
taking it out: https://play.golang.org/p/_7p69KE_RZ
And that is really broken idiom. It has race condition: concurrent goroutine
may put dufferent value in the channel between those two lines of code. More
over, if you use blocking send here, then you will end in blocked goroutine in
Another mistake in this idiom: if other concurrent goroutine checks this
channel within select, and that check happens between those two lines (between
receive and following send), then it see empty "future".
And even ir when does not lead to mistake, it serialize "broadcast": goroutines
are awoken one after other, instead of being awoken in parallel.
That is why I want language (or standard library) to have reliable
implementation: people should not invent bicycles with square wheels.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.