Burak, I think you dont get the potential of the suggesred directives.
You can be interested in waitepty(ch) for example when:
- you have direct control of who is pushing and pulling on it, and you know
what an empty buffer means
buffer could be "things to do or process", and you have a very
easy-to-setup observer to alert some routine that:
- you are out of job, or
- you have too many to process
Also what you suggest as raciness is irrelevant:
for {
x := <- ch {
// here, do you have a guarantee that you can put x back to the channel
??
}
}
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 10:57:43 PM UTC+3, Burak Serdar wrote:
>
> You can implement waitempty(ch) without a race condition. However, any
> scenario in which you use waitempty(ch) would have a race condition,
> because the moment it returns there is no guarantee on the state of
> the channel. So in a piece of code like this:
>
> waitempty(ch)
> post
>
>
> the only guarantee you have is that when 'post' is running, ch was
> empty at least once since waitempty was called.
>
> This code:
>
> for {
> if waitempty(ch) {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> is racy, because when you go into the if block, you have no idea how
> many times ch was empty.
>
--
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.
