Running multiple commands using `go tool wgo` could be better supported

[chimbori]

wgo expects a hard-coded string wgo after ::, which doesn’t work when invoking wgo using go tool.

We could just use wgo without the go tool, but that breaks consistency with how other commands are expected to be invoked using the :: syntax.

[bokwoon95]

Um, the documentation is worded in a way that does specifically describe wgo after :: though, which should be clear even if wgo was invoked with go tool wgo:

Running parallel wgo commands

If a command separator :: is followed by wgo, a new wgo command is started (which runs in parallel).

I mean, it's less typing also.

$ go tool wgo echo 1 :: go tool wgo echo 2 :: go tool wgo echo 3

vs

$ go tool wgo echo 1 :: wgo echo 2 :: wgo echo 3

Is there any benefit of typing go tool wgo over and over instead of wgo?

(I like the current way because it keeps the implementation dumb and simple, we don't have to assume any alternative ways of invoking wgo. Even using wgo.exe on windows instead of wgo already defeats this)

# doesn't run in parallel, runs serially
$ wgo.exe echo 1 :: wgo.exe echo 2 :: wgo.exe echo 3

# or, god forbid
$ /usr/bin/wgo echo 1 :: /usr/bin/wgo echo 2 :: /usr/bin/wgo echo 3

[chimbori]

It’s mainly about the duality of the token after ::: it can either be an actual command or the magic string wgo (which is not the same as the command wgo).

My understanding of the documented syntax before I read the code was that this internally spawned a new wgo process.

I do agree that the current approach is less verbose, but perhaps there could be a less-magic-y way of expressing this? (I spent some time figuring out why this broke after replacing all instances of wgo with go tool wgo).

Something that isn’t the same as the name of the tool could be less confusing (e.g. ::&&?)

It’s a footgun rather than a bug, for sure. Thanks for your quick response, I appreciate it!

[bokwoon95]

I spent some time figuring out why this broke after replacing all instances of wgo with go tool wgo

Ahh, I see. I did intentionally make the magic string after :: to be wgo to give the illusion that a separate wgo process is started, but I can see how that misunderstanding might lead to bugs like this.

Something that isn’t the same as the name of the tool could be less confusing (e.g. ::&&?)

I don't really want to add more syntax to wgo, but I will make a note in the readme about this footgun. Hopefully, it will be clearer.