Idiomatic Go Iterators
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Type Name Latest commit message Commit time
Failed to load latest commit information.


Build Status

This is a small research on how to build number sequence generators for iteration.

I got inspired and puzzled by the article at [] so I decided to try some ideas myself, like adding support for Context in the channel based iterator, so it could be a safe option, and adding support for an interesting way to build structs by using Optional named arguments.


The iter.Int has support for 3 different idioms

Slice Idiom

This is pretty similar to how the Python's range function works, which is generating the sequence and returning a list. The Go version in this package returns a slice, that can be iterated:

    for n := range iter.NewIntSeq(iter.Start(1), iter.Stop(100), iter.Step(2)).All() {

Sequence Loop Idiom

This is close to how the Python's xrange function works. It basically encapsulates a 3-clause for loop in a struct. There is not a single advantage here. But let's just test anyway:

    for seq, n := iter.NewIntSeqStart(iter.Stop(10), iter.Step(2)); seq.Continue(); seq.Get() {

Channel Iterator Idiom

This is, by far, the worst option, for many reasons including memory and resource leaks [1], and worse performance because of locking & context switching. Adding support for context.Context helps a bit, but this is still a slow option, just for the sake of using range:

    for n := range iter.NewIntSeq(iter.Stop(100)).Iter() {


To run the benchmarks, you can either use make bench or run go test -v -bench=. -benchmem ./.... The following are the results I got in my desktop:

BenchmarkSmallSlice-8                     200000              6748 ns/op           16512 B/op          4 allocs/op
BenchmarkMediumSlice-8                       500           3034537 ns/op         8011908 B/op          4 allocs/op
BenchmarkBigSlice-8                          200           5960648 ns/op        16007296 B/op          4 allocs/op
BenchmarkSmallSequenceLoop-8              500000              3531 ns/op             128 B/op          2 allocs/op
BenchmarkMediumSequenceLoop-8               1000           1717939 ns/op             128 B/op          2 allocs/op
BenchmarkBigSequenceLoop-8                   500           3447407 ns/op             128 B/op          2 allocs/op
BenchmarkSmallChannelIterator-8            10000            108716 ns/op           16512 B/op          4 allocs/op
BenchmarkMediumChannelIterator-8              20          56450098 ns/op         8012062 B/op          4 allocs/op
BenchmarkBigChannelIterator-8                 10         112913903 ns/op        16007483 B/op          4 allocs/op
BenchmarkSmallThreeClauseForLoop-8       3000000               531 ns/op               0 B/op          0 allocs/op
BenchmarkMediumThreeClauseForLoop-8         5000            261893 ns/op               0 B/op          0 allocs/op
BenchmarkBigThreeClauseForLoop-8            3000            525303 ns/op               0 B/op          0 allocs/op


This was a fun coding practice, but if you can, stick with the native 3-clause for loops. They are much simpler, and also the fastest option!