I see. I was thinking of it from the point of view of the author of this
yield/consume function. From that party's perspective, this function
expresses the consumption of the value, not its production. But since the
new go lang feature will make that not an explicit function, that is not
the mo
* mspre...@gmail.com [240207 10:43]:
> The go language is getting better and better for functional programming,
> and I am here for it. I have enjoyed using APL, Scheme, Python. I was
> excited to see https://go.dev/wiki/RangefuncExperiment . However, I am
> puzzled by the choice to name the fu
I'm not sure what you mean. The `yield` function does exactly the same as
Python's `yield` statement and in fact, that's part of why the name was
chosen.
Compare Python:
def vals(a):
for v in a:
yield v
for x in vals([1,2,3]):
print(x)
With Go:
func vals[T any](s []T) iter.
The go language is getting better and better for functional programming,
and I am here for it. I have enjoyed using APL, Scheme, Python. I was
excited to see https://go.dev/wiki/RangefuncExperiment . However, I am
puzzled by the choice to name the function parameter that _receives_ a
Seq's valu
