>When it comes to iteration, there is the generator pattern, in which a channel is returned, and then the thread 'drinks' the channel until it is dry, for example `func (m myType) Walk() chan->myType` can be iterated over via `range v := mt.Walk(){ [...] }`. Non-channel based patterns also exist, tokenisers usually have a Next() which can be used to step into the next token, etc.

Actually using channels as a general iterator just for the sake of using the range operator is considered as an anti-pattern. The reason is not performance (although it has a cost), but the risk of leaking producer goroutines. Your example:

for v := range mt.Walk() {
if blah {
break
}
}

How will the goroutine writing into the channel returned by mt.Walk know when there are no more consumers which will possibly read from it?

One way out is:

done := make(chan struct{})
for v := range mt.Walk(done) {
if blah {
break
}
}
close(done) // or defer close(done)

Picking the right cleanup is error-prone.

What about errors? How will mt.Walk tell you that it had to interrupt the iteration because an error happened? Either your channel has a struct field containing your error and your actual value (unfortunately Go lacks tuples or multivalue channels).

Furthermore uncaught panics in the producer goroutine will generate a deadlock, which will be caught by the runtime, but it will halt your process. One way to do it is:

errChan := make(chan error)
for v := range mt.Walk(errChan) {
if blah {
break
}
}
err := <-errChan

The producer will use the select statement to write both to errChan and your result channel. The success of writing to errChan is a signal for the producer that the consumer exited.
However same thing here about relying on the last statement being executed to avoid a leak in case of returns or panics. Here the defer is less nice since you're supposed to do something with the error:

func Example() (err error) {
errChan := make(chan error)
for v := range mt.Walk(errChan) {
if blah {
break
}
}
defer func() {
err = <-errChan
}()
}

Next-style methods just pass through the panics, and allow you to handle errors either by having a func Next() (error, value) or with this pattern which moves the pesky error handling outside:

i := NewIterator()
for i.Next() {
item := i.Item()
...
}
err := i.Error()

First, any panic that happens inside either your code or the generator will bubble through.
Second, if you return from your loop body, you will have to provide your own error (the compiler will remind you about your function signature, if in doubt). You can return early if the iterator can be stopped and GCed out (i.e. it doesn't handle goroutines or external resources), otherwise you'd have to call a cleanup as with channels.

The rule of thumb with Go should be that you don't have to do things just because they use some syntactic sugar. After a while you start to think about beauty in terms of properties not about calligraphy.

However, I do see this as a weak point of the language, which hopefully can be solved by education; after all Go is so simple to learn that you might be tempted to make it look even simpler. But the fact that the language has (almost) no magic, it means that you can actually understand what some code does, which imho outweighs the occasional syntactical heaviness or having to learn a few patterns.