On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 7:15 PM nc <nchell...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks! This is quite helpful information. I have one small followup > question: when you use make([]type, len) and assign, if you were using a > range loop, that would require an index variable right? In the case of > ranging over a slice or array or string you could use the range's index > variable, and in the case of a map you could declare an zero index var ahead > of the block and increment it at the bottom of the loop? I think this sort of > indexing would be necessary in order to perform the assignment. Perhaps I am > being overly pedantic and I apologize if so; I just want to be really clear.
That is correct. Ian > On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 6:06:33 PM UTC-4 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:01 PM nc <nche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I have some sample code here: https://play.golang.com/p/H4kOGxamk0_D >> > >> > I have used a pattern in the above playground snippet (twice: once in >> > uniqueValues() and once in keys()) that declares and initializes a slice >> > like: s := make([]T, 0, knownLength) . Then it ranges over something >> > containing knownLength elements and assigns them to s using append. The >> > thing I like about this pattern is that I don't need an index variable in >> > my range loop and I can just get away with using append(). I am trying to >> > avoid the need to extend the array underlying s when calling append and >> > more generally to do this initialization efficiently and with a minimum of >> > code. This is also my first bit of code using generics. >> >> This technique, of make([]type, 0, len) followed by an append loop, is >> a common one. Personally I always use that technique if the loop >> statement is at all complicated, such as if it has any sort of if >> statement. For very simple loops like the ones in your example I >> might just use make([]type, len) and then assign, but using append is >> also good. In my opinion. >> >> >> > I'm also wondering a couple of other questions that are less important to >> > me right now but that I would still very much appreciate having answered: >> > >> > 1. Is my use of generics reasonable here? >> >> Seems fine to me. Minor syntax point: you don't have to write "T >> comparable, U comparable", you can write "T, U comparable". >> >> Ian > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "golang-nuts" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/3bc68355-4993-4995-bb7c-6bd7a859dbf7n%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcUs9GJfHg%3Dh_p3FRKDXgJYPTPHWWdopFdmhdh-6WTHSPA%40mail.gmail.com.
