You can simply validate it by run: go run -race main.go for you program: https://play.golang.org/p/JRSEPU3Uf17
On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 1:30:30 PM UTC-4, Robert Engels wrote: > > The memory model is pretty unspecified but they’re working on it. As a > defacto behavior it is pretty hard to have what I stated not be the case. > > On Sep 1, 2019, at 9:46 AM, T L <tapi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > This is not true, at least no Go official documentation admits this. > > On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 7:42:38 AM UTC-4, Robert Engels wrote: >> >> That is incorrect. The atomic operations must exhibit the same happens >> before relationships as the mutex. If the mutex flushes the related cache >> lines the atomic load will pick it up. >> >> On Aug 31, 2019, at 10:55 PM, T L <tapi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 9:49:56 PM UTC-4, Robert Engels wrote: >>> >>> Yes, that is why the original code did not use a lock on the read but >>> the read of the flag was wrong. The version I posted in the other thread >>> works fine locally. time.Sleep() has problems in the playground >>> >> >> You mean this one: https://play.golang.org/p/JRSEPU3Uf17 ? >> No no, it is not a good ideas to use mutex in write but atomic in read to >> avoid concurrently accessing the same value. >> >> >>> >>> On Aug 31, 2019, at 7:50 AM, T L <tapi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-4, Robert Engels wrote: >>>> >>>> If you comment out the read method then all threads will block. That is >>>> the the behavior of an unbuffered channel - a writer blocks until a reader >>>> is ready. Which is why you always need a valid reader running. Unless the >>>> channel is closed and then the writer will panic. >>>> >>>> The code I provided is valid. >>>> >>> >>> In fact, if I comment out the write instead read part, the code will >>> also crash on all goroutines are blocked. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 31, 2019, at 2:40 AM, T L <tapi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 1:40:33 PM UTC-4, Robert Engels wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You changed the Read() method incorrectly - it should be using the >>>>> Read lock, not the Write lock. >>>>> >>>>> Still, as I pointed out when I posted it, Play has a problem where it >>>>> aborts if all routines are sleeping (not just blocked), so you need to >>>>> run >>>>> it locally. >>>>> >>>> >>>> My fault. But it doesn't matter, for the Read method is never called (I >>>> commented it off). >>>> It also crash locally for all goroutines are blocked. >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: T L >>>>> Sent: Aug 30, 2019 12:05 PM >>>>> To: golang-nuts >>>>> Subject: Re: [go-nuts] An old problem: lack of priority select cases >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 12:39:41 PM UTC-4, Robert Engels wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Makes no difference in the code I posted.... as long as they all use >>>>>> the same MultiWriterChannel. In fact, others can be late started, as >>>>>> they >>>>>> will fail fast if the channel is already closed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://play.golang.org/p/pcwIu2w8ZRb >>>>> >>>>> All go routines are blocked in the modified version. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: T L >>>>>> Sent: Aug 30, 2019 11:13 AM >>>>>> To: golang-nuts >>>>>> Subject: Re: [go-nuts] An old problem: lack of priority select cases >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:35:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Engels wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think so. Why do you think that is the case? The RWLock is >>>>>>> "fair" in the sense that once the 'closer' attempts to get the lock, it >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> guaranteed to get it (as the code is structured) - the subsequent >>>>>>> readers >>>>>>> will queue behind the "writer = closer". >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How about unknown/random number of senders and readers? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: T L >>>>>>> Sent: Aug 30, 2019 8:50 AM >>>>>>> To: golang-nuts >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [go-nuts] An old problem: lack of priority select cases >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Robert >>>>>>> I think there is a difference between the code of @Leo and you. >>>>>>> In you code, the Wirte/Read/Close are all possible to block for ever. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 8:59:10 PM UTC-4, Robert Engels >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oops. You are right. The original used two different methods >>>>>>>> Closed() and Read() and when I refactored I forgot to add the Read >>>>>>>> lock to >>>>>>>> the Read(). That's why you always have code reviews... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: T L >>>>>>>> Sent: Aug 29, 2019 6:25 PM >>>>>>>> To: golang-nuts >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [go-nuts] An old problem: lack of priority select >>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 10:05:06 PM UTC-4, robert engels >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is a version using RWLock >>>>>>>>> https://play.golang.org/p/YOwuYFiqtlf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Doesn't the Read method need to be guarded by the reader lock? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It won’t run correctly in the playground because it terminates >>>>>>>>> when all routines are asleep - which happens during the test (not >>>>>>>>> sure why >>>>>>>>> it does this, as sleeping is different than a deadlock). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is probably less efficient, and less orderly than the other >>>>>>>>> example using WaitGroup but you get the idea I hope. It forcibly >>>>>>>>> terminates >>>>>>>>> the writers before they complete by design. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2019, at 4:09 PM, Michel Levieux < >>>>>>>>> m.le...@capitaldata.fr> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One should also be careful regarding the conceptual demands he or >>>>>>>>> she is making. >>>>>>>>> Having a shared resource (that is complex enough that it cannot be >>>>>>>>> atomically accessed or modified) means essentially that "having >>>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>> writers being transparent to the readers", fundamentally, is not >>>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From the moment itself when such a resource is shared, there must >>>>>>>>> be some sort of mecanism (that one using resources atomically usable) >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> ensures the integrity of it. >>>>>>>>> Maybe what you're talking about is having it transparent in terms >>>>>>>>> of code, in which case we both agree, but if you're looking for >>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>> transparent in essence, as in performance, logical construction and >>>>>>>>> all the >>>>>>>>> rest, I think there is a misunderstanding here: even if it was added >>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>> language, there would be many many things going on under the hood, as >>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>> already (and cannot really be otherwise) for channel use alone. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As for the priority using selects, I think it's more of something >>>>>>>>> to be dealt with on the "user-side". There are many kinds of priority >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> general, and trying to implement something in the language itself >>>>>>>>> would IMO >>>>>>>>> either be too specific compared to the nessecary time to do so or it >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> probably have a huge overhead on the "classical' use case of the >>>>>>>>> select >>>>>>>>> construct. >>>>>>>>> + the fact that it is apparently already possible using RWMutexes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le mer. 28 août 2019 à 22:37, Marcin Romaszewicz <mar...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Think of a channel as existing for the lifetime of a particular >>>>>>>>>> data stream, and not have it be associated with either producer or >>>>>>>>>> consumer. Here's an example: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://play.golang.org/p/aEAXXtz2X1g >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The channel here is closed after all producers have exited, and >>>>>>>>>> all consumers continue to run until the channel is drained of data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The producers are managed by something somewhere in your code - >>>>>>>>>> and that is the scope at which it makes sense to create channel >>>>>>>>>> ownership. >>>>>>>>>> I've used a waitgroup to ensure that the channel is closed after all >>>>>>>>>> producers exit, but you can use whatever barrier construct you want. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even if you must have a channel per producer, you can safely >>>>>>>>>> close the producer side, without notifying the downstream about >>>>>>>>>> this. The >>>>>>>>>> example early in the thread uses multiple channels, with one channel >>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>> used to signal that the producers should exit. Channels aren't >>>>>>>>>> really the >>>>>>>>>> right model for this, you want a thread safe flag of some sort. For >>>>>>>>>> example: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> var exitFlag uint64 >>>>>>>>>> func producer(chan data int, wg *sync.WaitGroup) { >>>>>>>>>> defer wg.Done() >>>>>>>>>> for { >>>>>>>>>> shouldExit := atomic.LoadUint64(&exitFlag) >>>>>>>>>> if shouldExit == 1 { >>>>>>>>>> return >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> chan <- rand.Intn(100) >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here's 10 producers and 3 consumers sharing a channel and closing >>>>>>>>>> it safely upon receiving an exit flag: >>>>>>>>>> https://play.golang.org/p/RiKi1PGVSvF >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- Marcin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:29 AM Leo Lara <l...@leopoldolara.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I do not think priority select is *necessary*, it could be a >>>>>>>>>>> nice addition if the performance does not change. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 8:27:36 PM UTC+2, Leo Lara >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Robert, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From the article: """To bound more the problem, in my case, you >>>>>>>>>>>> control the writers but not the readers""" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So what I was trying to do was to be able to close, with >>>>>>>>>>>> mutiple writers, while being transparent for the readers. The >>>>>>>>>>>> readers only >>>>>>>>>>>> need to read as usual form the channel. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if you want to write a library where the user just >>>>>>>>>>>> reads from a channel, this is an approach I found where the user >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> lirbary deos nto have to do anything special. Of course, there >>>>>>>>>>>> might be >>>>>>>>>>>> another solution, but if you need to modify the reader we are >>>>>>>>>>>> talking about >>>>>>>>>>>> a different problem. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers!! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 7:17:24 PM UTC+2, Robert >>>>>>>>>>>> Engels wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A better solution is to wrap the writes using a RWLock, grab >>>>>>>>>>>>> the read lock for writing, and the Write lock for closing. Pretty >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Just encapsulate it all in a MultiWriterChannel struct - >>>>>>>>>>>>> generics would help here :) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Leo Lara >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Aug 28, 2019 11:24 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: golang-nuts >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [go-nuts] Re: An old problem: lack of priority select >>>>>>>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is connected with my article: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dev.to/leolara/closing-a-go-channel-written-by-several-goroutines-52j2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think there I show it is possible to workaround that >>>>>>>>>>>>> limitation using standard Go tools. Of course, the code would be >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>>>>>>> with priority select, but also perhaps select would become less >>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 6:06:33 PM UTC+2, T L wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The old thread: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/ZrVIhHCrR9o >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go channels are flexible, but in practice, I often >>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountered some situations in which channel are hard to use. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given an example: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> import "math/rand" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> type Producer struct { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> data chan int >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed chan struct{} >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> func NewProducer() *Producer { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> p := &Producer { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> data: make(chan int), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed: make(chan struct{}), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> go p.run() >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return p >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> func (p *Produce) Stream() chan int { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return p.data >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> func (p *Producer) run() { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> // If non-blocking cases are selected by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearance order, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> // then the following slect block is a perfect use. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> select { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> case(0) <-p.closed: return >>>>>>>>>>>>>> case p.data <- rand.Int(): >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> func (p *Produce) Clsoe() { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> close(p.closed) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> close(p.data) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> func main() { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> p := NewProducer() >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for n := p.Stream() { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> // use n ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the first case in the select block in the above example >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a higher priority than the second one, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then coding will be much happier for the use cases like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> above one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, the above use case requires: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * for receivers, data streaming end is notified by the close >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a channel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * for senders, data will never be sent to closed channel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, as Go 1 doesn't support priority select cases, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> much tedious to implement the code >>>>>>>>>>>>>> satisfying the above listed requirements. The final >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation is often very ugly and inefficient. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone else also experience the pain? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/b284f880-034a-4721-8686-ef48d3e2c14c%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/b284f880-034a-4721-8686-ef48d3e2c14c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/aeb38a0a-8268-42d7-a8eb-ce5ef01c5380%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/aeb38a0a-8268-42d7-a8eb-ce5ef01c5380%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CA%2Bv29LvcUhUvrZb_8AKYWj0A%2Bqd5LKBPmbz-RVBb%3DJn_gNZE6w%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CA%2Bv29LvcUhUvrZb_8AKYWj0A%2Bqd5LKBPmbz-RVBb%3DJn_gNZE6w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CANgi337s1Low95QvqJUAOTsqcVji7uMQ_jr%3DFftpt2uMz5_XSQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CANgi337s1Low95QvqJUAOTsqcVji7uMQ_jr%3DFftpt2uMz5_XSQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/a5cff3f8-cc1c-4719-9f2f-7b9c31086f6a%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/a5cff3f8-cc1c-4719-9f2f-7b9c31086f6a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4bf95bb2-33ed-46ed-9436-48df1072914f%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/4bf95bb2-33ed-46ed-9436-48df1072914f%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/d155dcf6-7c01-4f7e-b408-eef9903cd837%40googlegroups.com >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/d155dcf6-7c01-4f7e-b408-eef9903cd837%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/74653e49-f374-4ac8-998e-fd874cdf6bd4%40googlegroups.com >>>>> >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/74653e49-f374-4ac8-998e-fd874cdf6bd4%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/3d75a129-efee-402f-aafa-9fe76af4e789%40googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/3d75a129-efee-402f-aafa-9fe76af4e789%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> -- >>> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/dfdf8905-f740-434c-a293-d801de4f71dc%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/dfdf8905-f740-434c-a293-d801de4f71dc%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> -- >> 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 golan...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/ffd06e6e-fb00-400e-ad5f-5f23d27025f7%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/ffd06e6e-fb00-400e-ad5f-5f23d27025f7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- > 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 golan...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/dd5a26b4-b080-4dd1-801b-ff59eccf9940%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/dd5a26b4-b080-4dd1-801b-ff59eccf9940%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- 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/fc0de346-f93e-4458-b301-1c893d24efa3%40googlegroups.com.
