Alternative go-github API

go-github-client.go

func main() {

  watchers, pager, _, err := client.Activity.ListWatchers("o", "r")
  if pager.HasNext() {
    watchers, pager, _, err = pager.Next()
  }
  //..
  //or:
  watchers, pager, _, err = pager.Last()
}

what would said Next() and Last() functions return?

I slept over this and I think I have more clarity regarding what I was trying to get to.

how about something like this:

iter, err := client.Activity.ListStarrers("o", "r")

// Fetch current result set:
data := iter.Data()

// Move to next page:
iter.Next()
data, err = iter.Data()

// or..
iter.Prev()
data, err = iter.Data()

// Optionally...
iter.JumpTo(5)

Essentially, iter.Next() would call the API method (in this case Activity.ListStarrers) with the correct page number set.

I think this useful because:

• User of the API doesn't need to track which page number he is currently on. The 'iterator' does that.
• If Github later move away from a linear integer based paging to hash based one, API wouldn't change
• It is very rare that the API user would know the exact page number. Most use cases would involve going to next page or previous one. And that needs to be made simpler.
• Return type (atleast in terms of interface) for all methods returning list would become consistent

Infact, the iter.JumpTo could look something like this:

func (i *Iterator ) JumpTo(pg interface{}) {
   // Use stringer
}

okay, but what does func (i *Iterator) Data() return? What I'm getting at, is that I suspect the only thing that would really work is to return interface{}, which requires that the user then type switch to whatever the real type is and you lose all type safety.

One alternative would be to have a new Iterator type for every data type you need to page through, so that Data() can return an exact type rather than iterator{}, but now you've close to doubled the number of types that users of the library have to contend with.

Drats. Its times like these that I feel really really stupid.

I clearly didn't think this through and wasted your time as well.
Although I would blame excessive usage of dynamically typed languages for this stupid suggestion :P

Thanks for your time! And thanks for merging the PR!

No worries... it's not stupid at all. I'm still getting used to working in Go myself... some things really are different here than how you would approach them in other languages (particularly dynamically typed languages, as you mention).

And to be clear, I have no problem with adding something to the library that makes working with paginated results a little easier. I just honestly don't know what else we can do than what we currently have.