On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 10:14 PM Ruslan Semagin <pixel.365...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying, Ian. You are right, variadic expansion doesn’t > literally apply element by element — the slice is passed as-is. > > What I meant to highlight is the *mental model* programmers already use: > when reading `f(xs...)` it is commonly understood as “take all the elements > and pass them along.” My thought was that `ch <- xs...` extends that same > intuition into channel sends, even though the mechanics differ internally. > > So the comparison was more about readability and consistency from the > user’s perspective, not about the underlying implementation. In that sense, > `ch <- xs...` is intended as a lightweight, expressive shorthand for a very > common loop, similar to how variadics provide an expressive shorthand for > building argument lists. > FWIW, it is far from obvious to me whether your proposed change is equivalent to iterating over the list and injecting each element individually or the channel is locked, every element injected, then the channel is unlocked. Especially in light of the comparison to function calls where that isn't an issue (beyond the usual race considerations involving slices). Not to mention how the proposed syntax interacts with the edge case of the channel being closed during the injection of the values. I appreciate why you made the proposal (and might have made it myself) but at the end of the day I feel the explicit loop is preferable. -- Kurtis Rader Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CABx2%3DD-Rz_5byd6ASE2jxkw0y5ui6rEJOKM%3DS0vhaQ%3DZm8AVUg%40mail.gmail.com.
