Yes.
If you manipulate the meaning of the index (i) or the length of the slice,
then do it explicitly:
for i := 0; i < len(a); i++ {
if a[i] == 0 { //delete
a[i]=a[0]
a = a[1:]
i--
}
}
For other methods, see
https://go.dev/wiki/SliceTricks#filtering-without-allocating
Shivansh Rustagi a következőt írta (2024. február 5., hétfő, 15:29:06
UTC+1):
> Hi Guys, I had a question regarding:
>
> > On the other hand, if you have `for i, v := range a {` then the
> > expression *is* evaluated before the start of the loop.
>
> I have a code (https://goplay.tools/snippet/dMwD0_rEhkB) where I am
> ranging over a slice, and updating (removing the zeroth element form the
> same slice being ranged over) here I see that the "i" values is not being
> re-evaluated, it just gives an increasing number even if the ranged over
> slice has changed . Which can also be seen when I am printing the ith
> element given to me by the range, and the receiving out of range panic
>
> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 2:01:27 AM UTC+5:30 Dan Kortschak wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 16:53 +0100, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts wrote:
>> > One thing to keep in mind is that Go development was incremental and
>> > was done, from early on, by having multiple implementations.
>> > Incremental processes often lead to different results than designing
>> > a language from a blank slate. Ambiguities in the spec are often
>> > discovered only when someone notices that implementations disagree
>> > and must be resolved somehow. Sometimes that happens after Go 1 and
>> > the resolution must happen in a way that, as much as possible,
>> > retains stability guarantees. So, it's not unsurprising if we get
>> > non-obvious spec clauses such as this.
>> >
>> > Specifically, I can well imagine that this particular case arose,
>> > because it was discovered after the fact that one implementation
>> > contained an optimization to not evaluate the argument to `len`,
>> > while the other didn't and the question of side-effects only arose
>> > when someone noticed.
>> >
>> > I don't really know the answer to your question. I can't think of
>> > anything which would break. That being said, I also don't think it's
>> > something that really needs "fixing", as it seems a pretty uncommon
>> > concern.
>>
>> There is some discussion on the reasons when the original narrowing of
>> the behaviour was introduced (https://codereview.appspot.com/4444050).
>>
>> It's actually quite an interesting spec change from a language history
>> perspective, more because of the chan discussion than this particular
>> issue.
>>
>>
>>
--
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/237f0947-82e3-4467-834c-3c5fbfbb698dn%40googlegroups.com.
