Is there a way to iterate over a range of integers?

Go's range can iterate over maps and slices, but I was wondering if there is a way to iterate over a range of numbers, something like this:

for i := range [1..10] {
    fmt.Println(i)
}

Or is there a way to represent range of integers in Go like how Ruby does with the class Range?

Solution 1:

The idiomatic approach in Go is to write a for loop like this.

for i := 1; i <= 10; i++ {
    fmt.Println(i)
}

There's definitely advantages in ranges and they're used in many other languages, but a Go design principle is to only introduce an abstraction if the benefits significantly outweigh the costs (including the cost of making the language larger). Reasonable people disagree about the costs and benefits of ranges, but this answer is my attempt to describe what I think idiomatic Go is.

Solution 2:

Here is a program to compare the two ways suggested so far

import (
    "fmt"

    "github.com/bradfitz/iter"
)

func p(i int) {
    fmt.Println(i)
}

func plain() {
    for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
        p(i)
    }
}

func with_iter() {
    for i := range iter.N(10) {
        p(i)
    }
}

func main() {
    plain()
    with_iter()
}

Compile like this to generate disassembly

go build -gcflags -S iter.go

Here is plain (I've removed the non instructions from the listing)

setup

0035 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:14) MOVQ    $0,AX
0036 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:14) JMP     ,38

loop

0037 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:14) INCQ    ,AX
0038 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:14) CMPQ    AX,$10
0039 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:14) JGE     $0,45
0040 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:15) MOVQ    AX,i+-8(SP)
0041 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:15) MOVQ    AX,(SP)
0042 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:15) CALL    ,p+0(SB)
0043 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:15) MOVQ    i+-8(SP),AX
0044 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:14) JMP     ,37
0045 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:17) RET     ,

And here is with_iter

setup

0052 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    $10,AX
0053 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    $0,~r0+-24(SP)
0054 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    $0,~r0+-16(SP)
0055 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    $0,~r0+-8(SP)
0056 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    $type.[]struct {}+0(SB),(SP)
0057 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    AX,8(SP)
0058 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    AX,16(SP)
0059 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) PCDATA  $0,$48
0060 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) CALL    ,runtime.makeslice+0(SB)
0061 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) PCDATA  $0,$-1
0062 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    24(SP),DX
0063 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    32(SP),CX
0064 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    40(SP),AX
0065 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    DX,~r0+-24(SP)
0066 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    CX,~r0+-16(SP)
0067 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    AX,~r0+-8(SP)
0068 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    $0,AX
0069 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) LEAQ    ~r0+-24(SP),BX
0070 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    8(BX),BP
0071 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    BP,autotmp_0006+-32(SP)
0072 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) JMP     ,74

loop

0073 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) INCQ    ,AX
0074 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    autotmp_0006+-32(SP),BP
0075 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) CMPQ    AX,BP
0076 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) JGE     $0,82
0077 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) MOVQ    AX,autotmp_0005+-40(SP)
0078 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:21) MOVQ    AX,(SP)
0079 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:21) CALL    ,p+0(SB)
0080 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:21) MOVQ    autotmp_0005+-40(SP),AX
0081 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:20) JMP     ,73
0082 (/home/ncw/Go/iter.go:23) RET     ,

So you can see that the iter solution is considerably more expensive even though it is fully inlined in the setup phase. In the loop phase there is an extra instruction in the loop, but it isn't too bad.

I'd use the simple for loop.

Solution 3:

It was suggested by Mark Mishyn to use slice but there is no reason to create array with make and use in for returned slice of it when array created via literal can be used and it's shorter

for i := range [5]int{} {
        fmt.Println(i)
}