


Why Does Golang\'s `append()` Seem to Modify a Slice After It\'s Sent Over a Channel?
When Does Golang append() Create a New Slice?
The documentation for append() indicates that it will allocate a new slice and copy the elements when the capacity of the original slice is insufficient. However, a discrepancy arises when examining the output of the following code, which generates combinations of a boolean alphabet.
<code class="go">package main import ( "fmt" ) func AddOption(c chan []bool, combo []bool, length int) { if length == 0 { fmt.Println(combo, "!") c <- combo return } var newCombo []bool for _, ch := range []bool{true, false} { newCombo = append(combo, ch) AddOption(c, newCombo, length-1) } } func main() { c := make(chan []bool) go func(c chan []bool) { defer close(c) AddOption(c, []bool{}, 4) }(c) for combination := range c { fmt.Println(combination) } }</code>
Contrasting Observations
In the output, the lines ending with an exclamation mark represent slices sent over the channel by AddOption, while the lines without an exclamation mark show the slices received in main(). Noticeably, the slices sent over the channel appear to be modified after being sent, despite append() allegedly returning a new slice.
Examining the Source
The questionable codeblock is:
<code class="go">var newCombo []bool for _, ch := range []bool{true, false} { newCombo = append(combo, ch) AddOption(c, newCombo, length-1) }</code>
According to the documentation, append() should return a new slice descriptor pointing to a new underlying data array when the capacity of the original slice is not sufficient. However, the passed value as the second argument to AddOption may be either a pointer to a slice descriptor or a genuine copy of the slice descriptor.
Clarifying the Behavior
The answer to this question lies in distinguishing between the slice data type and its actual representation. A slice descriptor consists of two integers for length and capacity, along with a pointer to the underlying data.
While append() does return a new slice descriptor with a potentially different underlying data array, the pointer to the data remains the same unless the capacity is expanded. This means that while the slice descriptor itself is a copy, the pointer value (address to the underlying data) is shared.
Additional Example
For illustration, consider this code snippet:
<code class="go">package main import "fmt" func main() { s := make([]int, 0, 5) s = append(s, []int{1, 2, 3, 4}...) a := append(s, 5) fmt.Println(a) b := append(s, 6) fmt.Println(b) fmt.Println(a) }</code>
This code prints:
[1 2 3 4 5] [1 2 3 4 6] [1 2 3 4 6]
Initially, s has enough capacity, so a and b share the same underlying data pointer. However, if we reduce the capacity of s to 4, the output changes to:
[1 2 3 4 5] [1 2 3 4 6] [1 2 3 4 5]
This demonstrates that a and b only share the same underlying data when s has sufficient capacity.
The above is the detailed content of Why Does Golang\'s `append()` Seem to Modify a Slice After It\'s Sent Over a Channel?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!

Hot AI Tools

Undresser.AI Undress
AI-powered app for creating realistic nude photos

AI Clothes Remover
Online AI tool for removing clothes from photos.

Undress AI Tool
Undress images for free

Clothoff.io
AI clothes remover

Video Face Swap
Swap faces in any video effortlessly with our completely free AI face swap tool!

Hot Article

Hot Tools

Notepad++7.3.1
Easy-to-use and free code editor

SublimeText3 Chinese version
Chinese version, very easy to use

Zend Studio 13.0.1
Powerful PHP integrated development environment

Dreamweaver CS6
Visual web development tools

SublimeText3 Mac version
God-level code editing software (SublimeText3)

Hot Topics

OpenSSL, as an open source library widely used in secure communications, provides encryption algorithms, keys and certificate management functions. However, there are some known security vulnerabilities in its historical version, some of which are extremely harmful. This article will focus on common vulnerabilities and response measures for OpenSSL in Debian systems. DebianOpenSSL known vulnerabilities: OpenSSL has experienced several serious vulnerabilities, such as: Heart Bleeding Vulnerability (CVE-2014-0160): This vulnerability affects OpenSSL 1.0.1 to 1.0.1f and 1.0.2 to 1.0.2 beta versions. An attacker can use this vulnerability to unauthorized read sensitive information on the server, including encryption keys, etc.

Backend learning path: The exploration journey from front-end to back-end As a back-end beginner who transforms from front-end development, you already have the foundation of nodejs,...

The library used for floating-point number operation in Go language introduces how to ensure the accuracy is...

Queue threading problem in Go crawler Colly explores the problem of using the Colly crawler library in Go language, developers often encounter problems with threads and request queues. �...

Under the BeegoORM framework, how to specify the database associated with the model? Many Beego projects require multiple databases to be operated simultaneously. When using Beego...

The difference between string printing in Go language: The difference in the effect of using Println and string() functions is in Go...

What should I do if the custom structure labels in GoLand are not displayed? When using GoLand for Go language development, many developers will encounter custom structure tags...

The problem of using RedisStream to implement message queues in Go language is using Go language and Redis...
