What a terrible idea. If you want bytes.reader, then use that in the function signature, or better yet just a byte slice. It should have been a red flag when your solution involves the unsafe package
It's frustration about getting close to a good API, but not having any reasonable way to close the final gap, forcing you do you to go stuff like you mentioned: have multiple near-identical APIs for performance, and needing your users to understand and use them correctly to get a good result.
If I do have all the bytes in memory, then I have a []byte array, know I have it, and can use the []byte interface you must've implemented internally to use this speed up.
It's frustration about getting close to a good API, but not having any reasonable way to close the final gap, forcing you do you to [do] stuff like you mentioned: have multiple near-identical APIs for performance, and needing your users to understand and use them correctly to get a good result.
- Reading in memory data
- Reading from a stream
Then whats wrong with having two different APIs to use each mode?
Instead of you doing a if (detect in memory) in your code, it's just two different functions.
It would just be nice if it could automatically do the best thing.