FAQ
The question sounds weird to me...

It's useful receiving from a buffered channel every time it's useful
sending to a buffered channel, it's the same channel for sending and
receiving. It may or may not be useful to make that communication
asynchronous/buffered. There is no such thing as buffered channel being
useful for sending but not for receiving. The buffer is a property of the
channel/communication, not of the sender or receiver :)
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:03:28 AM UTC+2, Gyu-Ho Lee wrote:

So it makes sense to me to buffer a channel for sending when we need more
throughput and responsiveness.
Then is there any case that receiving from a buffered channel can be
useful?
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 4 of 6 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupgolang-nuts @
categoriesgo
postedAug 8, '15 at 1:03a
activeAug 8, '15 at 3:18a
posts6
users3
websitegolang.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase