On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 8:19 AM Andrey Tcherepanov <
xnow4fippy...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> So if this is a "just" a mutex, this whole thing will not be atomic - it
would introduce intermediate (albeit invisible) between "<-" parts. I was
hoping for the "edge collapse" here.
Not sure IIUC, but I
Thanks Jan,
So if this is a "just" a mutex, this whole thing will not be atomic - it
would introduce intermediate (albeit invisible) between "<-" parts. I was
hoping for the "edge collapse" here.
Andrey
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:08:13 AM UTC-7, Jan Mercl wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:47 AM Andrey Tcherepanov <
xnow4fippy...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> ch <- <-ch // Is this an atomic operation?
Channel send and receive operations are safe wrt to concurrency. That may
be seen atomic in a certain sense: only one goroutine at a time can ever
perform such
What do you mean atomic? The individual operations create happens before
edges afaik and since your channel is local there is nothing to worry about.
If you publish that channel then no I would say someone else can puh or
pull in between the two operations.
fre 9 mars 2018 kl 07:47 skrev Andrey
Hello fellow nuts,
Is pull-push to a (same) channel atomic?
func f() {
ch := make(chan interface{}, 100)
// ...
ch <- <-ch // Is this an atomic operation?
}
Thank you very much!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To
