Sorry for late reply: yes, it’s sugar, and a first implementation might be
to have the compiler simply rewrite it like a macro, as in your example.
And I realize that my example was more verbose than need be. We don’t call
an iterator on arrays, maps, etc, so my example should have been:
for t := range tokenizer {
// etc
}
I.e., need to call .Range(), since the point of the ‘interface' is to let
the compiler infer how to iterate.
It’s quite a lot less boilerplate, while keeping the intent clear, and
maybe even preventing some classes of user error.
On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-4, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
> > for t := range tokenizer.Next() {
> > // etc
> > }
>
> Isn't that just syntactic sugar for
>
> for t, more := f(); more; t, more = f() {
> ...
> }
>
> ?
>
>
>
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
