incorrect interface

[KaiserKarel]

Flock does not exactly follow the sync.Locker interface, as it's Lock() method returns an error. sync.Mutex panics in certain occasions. I think we could have a version of flock which also panics instead of returning errors, to ensure we have the correct interface.

[theckman]

I think panics being an intentional design decision in an interface is not a good choice, and isn't something I'd personally want to support. If you'd like to work with that interface instead, I think it's better to write a shim that wraps the flock library, versus complicating this package further.

[acln0]

Flock does not exactly follow the sync.Locker interface

Indeed, it does not. I don't think it should, either, because the semantics don't match. sync.Locker is not the right interface if lock and unlock operations may fail, which is the case for flock operations. To wit, perhaps the package-level documentation should be adjusted such that it does not mention sync.Locker anymore. I'll send a PR.

[KaiserKarel]

Either way seems fine to me. There are way more things that may panic with filelocks, so I get the aversion to panics. Simply fixing the Readme removes confusion as well.

Will close since I don't think much can be said, more of a sematics problem.

[KaiserKarel]

Either way seems fine to me. There are way more things that may panic with filelocks, so I get the aversion to panics. Simply fixing the Readme removes confusion as well.