I am a newcomer of go and recently I am following the instruction of A Tour of Go.
I am reading the chapter on Interface and I am really confused by the concept.
The code is as follows
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
testTypeAssertion()
}
func testTypeAssertion() string {
var i interface{}="hello"
fmt.Printf("type of i is %T",i)
return i
// return "hello"
}
In this case, it will cause error
# example
./prog.go:12:2: cannot use i (type interface {}) as type string in return argument: need type assertion
But if I comment return i and uncomment return "hello", it goes like this
type of i is string
So why exactly do we need a type assertion here?
What's the type of i exactly?
I believe this question is different from cannot use type interface {} as type person in assignment: need type assertion. Because in that question the poster is trying to assign an empty interface value to a variable that has a concrete self-defined type person. In my question, I am trying to figure out why an interface holding a concrete string value cannot be a return value of a function whose return value type is exactly string.
Thanks to mkopriva's answer in the comment section and bugstop's answer. I will accept that it's caused by the different usage of static type and dynamic type. By the way, Reality's answer is very interesting and really helped me to understand the whole concept!
Think of an interface as a little box that holds a type and a value. The box has methods that map to methods on the value in the box.
The statement fmt.Printf("type of i is %T",i) prints the type in the box, not the type of the box itself. Reflect package trickery is required to print the type of i. but that's outside the scope of this question.
The statement return i does not compile because interface{} is not a string. The box contains a string, but the box is not a string.
We can get the value out of the box using a type assertion: return i.(string). This statement panics if i does not contain a string.
it's an interface value i with a dynamic type string.
It may be useful to read about:
How to determine an interface{} value's "real" type?
Interfaces in Go
The variable i is of type interface{}, and its value is the string "hello". An interface is simply a method-set, and since interface{} has no methods specified, all types satisfy it. Because of this, the assignment i="hello" works.
However, you cannot return an interface{} where a string is required, because string is not the same type as an interface{}. You could have returned a string where an interface{} is required, because a string implements interface{}.
Related
I just want to confirm if my understanding is correct about interface{}{}
Does interface{}{} mean a composite literal of interface type?
So, if I wanted to pass a composite type, lets say []byte as a interface{}, I should assign it to a variable of type interface{}{} and pass in that variable, whereas if I wanted to pass a non composite type, such as a int as a interface{}, I should assign it to a variable of type interface{} and pass in that variable.
Is my understanding correct on this?
interface{}{} is invalid syntax.
It is not an empty interface composite literal — there's no such thing. The following don't compile:
var a interface{}{} = "foo" // not a type
b := interface{}{} // not a value
From the specs Composite Literals:
Composite literals construct values for structs, arrays, slices, and maps and create a new value each time they are evaluated.
The valid syntax is interface{}, which is the empty interface, i.e. an interface with no name and empty method set.
If you compare it to a named interface, you will see that the extra set of curly braces at the end makes no sense:
type Fooer interface {
Foo() error
}{} // ???
You can instantiate an empty interface{} by converting nil:
a := (interface{})(nil)
Or you can declare a var of unnamed interface type:
type A struct {}
func (a A) Foo() string {
return "foo"
}
var a interface{ Foo() string } = A{}
To answer your question:
So, if I wanted to pass a composite type [...]
you can assign any value to a variable of type interface{}, that's about it. Whether the value is composite or not is irrelevant because all types satisfy the empty interface:
var a interface{} = []byte{0x01, 0x02}
var b interface{} = "string_literal"
Playground: https://play.golang.org/p/w-l1dU-6Hb5
The empty interface interface{} essentially says "I don't care". Anything can be passed as an empty interface. So for your examples they all could be stored as the empty interface.
Possibly a more interesting question is why you want to avoid types in the first place, and what you're trying to achieve. But for the purposes of using interface{} you can pass anything to it, even a "nil".
interface{} type of empty interface.
you assign []byte or int to any empty variable of empty interface (interface{} type) or you can pass it directly to function that exepts interface values.
Consider this code:
package main
import "fmt"
type specialString string
func printString(s string) {
fmt.Println(s)
}
// unlike, say, C++, this is not legal GO, because it redeclares printString
//func printString(s specialString) {
// fmt.Println("Special: " + s)
//}
func main() {
ss := specialString("cheese")
// ... so then why shouldn't this be allowed?
printString(ss)
}
My question is: why is the language defined so that the call to printString(ss) in main() is not allowed? (I'm not looking for answers that point to the Golang rules on assignment; I have already read them, and I see that both specialString and string have the same 'underlying type' and both types are 'named' -- if you consider the generic type 'string' to be named, which Golang apparently does -- and so they are not assignable under the rules.)
But why are the rules like that? What problem is solved by treating the built-in types as 'named' types, and preventing you from passing named types to all the standard library functions that accepting the same underlying built-in type? Does anybody know what the language designers had in mind here?
From my point of view, it seems to create a lot of pointless type conversion in the code, and discourages the use of strong typing where it actually would make sense..
I believe the initial authors' logic here is that named type is named for a reason - it represents something different, not just underlying type.
I guess I've read it somewhere in golang-nuts, but can't remember exact discussion.
Consider the following example:
type Email string
You named it Email, because you need to represent e-mail entity, and 'string' is just simplified representation of it, sufficient for the very start. But later, you may want to change Email to something more complex, like:
type Email struct {
Address string
Name string
Surname string
}
And that will break all your code that work with Email implicitly assuming it's a string.
This is because Go does not have class inheritance. It uses struct composition instead. Named types do not inherit properties from their underlying type (that's why it's not called "base type").
So when you declare a named type specialString with an underlying type of a predefined type string, your new type is a completely different type from the underlying one. This is because Go assumes you will want to assign different behaviors to your new type, and will not check its underlying type until run-time. This is why Go is both a static and dynamic language.
When you print
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(ss)) // specialString
You get specialString, not string. If you take a look at Println() the definition is as follows:
func Println(a ...interface{}) (n int, err error) {
return Fprintln(os.Stdout, a...)
}
This means you can print any predeclared types (int, float64, string) because all of them implements at least zero methods, which makes them already conform to the empty interface and pass as "printable", but not your named type specialString which remains unknown to Go during compile time. We can check by printing the type of our interface{} against specialString.
type specialString string
type anything interface{}
s := string("cheese")
ss := specialString("special cheese")
at := anything("any cheese")
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(ss)) // specialString
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(s)) // string
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(at)) // Wow, this is also string!
You can see that specialString keeps being naughty to its identity. Now, see how it does when passed into a function at run-time
func printAnything(i interface{}) {
fmt.Println(i)
}
fmt.Println(ss.(interface{})) // Compile error! ss isn't interface{} but
printAnything(ss) // prints "special cheese" alright
ss has become passable as interface{} to the function. By that time Go has already made ss an interface{}.
If you really want to understand deep down the hood this article on interfaces is really priceless.
It's called nominal typing. It simply means that the type is identified by it's name and it has to be made explicit to be useful.
From a convenience point of view it is easy to critique but it super useful.
For example, let's say you have a parameter to a function that is a string but it cannot be just any string, there are rules you need to check. If you change the type from string to something that implies that you checked the string for potential problems you made a good design decision because it's now clear from just looking at the code that the string needs to go via some function to validate the input first (and enrich it's type in the process).
type Validated string
func Validate(input string): (Validated, err) {
return Validated(input), nil // assuming you actually did validate the string
}
Go makes these tradeoffs because it does improve readability (i.e. the ability of someone unfamiliar with your code to quickly understand how things work) and that's something they (the Go language designers) value above all else.
When I have a function that returns an interface type, the returned value doesn't work as I would expect. That is, it acts strictly as the defined interface, and to access the methods and values not defined in the interface, I have to do a type assertion. Why?
Consider the following sample code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Frobnicator interface {
Frobnicate()
}
type Foo struct {
Value string
}
func (f *Foo) Frobnicate() {
fmt.Printf("The value is %s\n", f.Value)
}
func fooFactory () Frobnicator {
return &Foo{"chicken"}
}
func main() {
foo := fooFactory( )
foo.Frobnicate()
// foo.Value undefined (type Frobnicator has no field or method Value)
// fmt.Printf("foo value = %s\n", foo.Value)
bar := foo.(*Foo)
fmt.Printf("bar value = %s\n", bar.Value)
}
Is there a better, easier, more idiomatic way to get at foo.Value? Or is a type assertion really the best way?
Not sure what to answer here. Maybe there is a misconception what interface types are. Interface types are absolutely normal types. And you can do with a interface value what the interface says: Invoke the interface methods. For a struct type you may access fields and invoke interface methods as defined by the struct type. So everything is plain and simple: A type allows what it allows, no matter whether interface or struct.
It now happens that a value of interface type may contain some struct value (say). Up to now this is hidden. Type asserting reveals the struct value (and there is no more interface). You may hide an other struct value in the interface (given it implements the right methods) this might not have a Value field. This makes it clear that you cannot access the Value field without a type assertion, because it might not be there.
If you need access to inner value of interface implementation (Value), you must either expose it via interface itself or do a type assertion. That's because nothing in Frobnicator suggests whether it's Foo or some other implementing struct.
It is not different than many other languages. In Java you will have to cast also under similar circumstances.
I'm new to interfaces and trying to do SOAP request by github
I don't understand the meaning of
Msg interface{}
in this code:
type Envelope struct {
Body `xml:"soap:"`
}
type Body struct {
Msg interface{}
}
I've observed the same syntax in
fmt.Println
but don't understand what's being achieved by
interface{}
Note: Go 1.18 (Q1 2022) does rename interface{} to any (alias for interface{}).
See issue 49884, CL 368254 and commit 2580d0e.
See the last part of this answer.
You can refer to the article "How to use interfaces in Go" (based on "Russ Cox’s description of interfaces"):
What is an interface?
An interface is two things:
it is a set of methods,
but it is also a type
The interface{} type (or any with Go 1.18+), the empty interface is the interface that has no methods.
Since there is no implements keyword, all types implement at least zero methods, and satisfying an interface is done automatically, all types satisfy the empty interface.
That means that if you write a function that takes an interface{} value as a parameter, you can supply that function with any value.
(That is what Msg represents in your question: any value)
func DoSomething(v interface{}) {
// ...
}
func DoSomething(v any) {
// ...
}
Here’s where it gets confusing:
inside of the DoSomething function, what is v's type?
Beginner gophers are led to believe that “v is of any type”, but that is wrong.
v is not of any type; it is of interface{} type.
When passing a value into the DoSomething function, the Go runtime will perform a type conversion (if necessary), and convert the value to an interface{} value.
All values have exactly one type at runtime, and v's one static type is interface{} (or any with Go 1.18+).
An interface value is constructed of two words of data:
one word is used to point to a method table for the value’s underlying type,
and the other word is used to point to the actual data being held by that value.
Addendum: This is were Russ's article is quite complete regarding an interface structure:
type Stringer interface {
String() string
}
Interface values are represented as a two-word pair giving a pointer to information about the type stored in the interface and a pointer to the associated data.
Assigning b to an interface value of type Stringer sets both words of the interface value.
The first word in the interface value points at what I call an interface table or itable (pronounced i-table; in the runtime sources, the C implementation name is Itab).
The itable begins with some metadata about the types involved and then becomes a list of function pointers.
Note that the itable corresponds to the interface type, not the dynamic type.
In terms of our example, the itable for Stringer holding type Binary lists the methods used to satisfy Stringer, which is just String: Binary's other methods (Get) make no appearance in the itable.
The second word in the interface value points at the actual data, in this case a copy of b.
The assignment var s Stringer = b makes a copy of b rather than point at b for the same reason that var c uint64 = b makes a copy: if b later changes, s and c are supposed to have the original value, not the new one.
Values stored in interfaces might be arbitrarily large, but only one word is dedicated to holding the value in the interface structure, so the assignment allocates a chunk of memory on the heap and records the pointer in the one-word slot.
Issue 33232 seems to point out to any as an alias to interface{} in Go 1.18 (Q1 2022)
Russ Cox explains:
'any' being only for constraints is a detail that will be in every writeup of generics - books, blog posts, and so on.
If we think we are likely to allow it eventually, it makes sense to allow it from the start and avoid invalidating all that written material.
'any' being only for constraints is an unexpected cut-out that reduces generality and orthogonality of concepts.
It's easy to say "let's just wait and see", but prescribing uses tends to create much more jagged features than full generality. We saw this with type aliases as well (and resisted almost all the proposed cut-outs, thankfully).
If 'any' is allowed in generics but not non-generic code, then it might encourage people to overuse generics simply because 'any' is nicer to write than 'interface{}', when the decision about generics or not should really be made by considering other factors.
If we allow 'any' for ordinary non-generic usage too, then seeing interface{} in code could serve as a kind of signal that the code predates generics and has not yet been reconsidered in the post-generics world.
Some code using interface{} should use generics. Other code should continue to use interfaces.
Rewriting it one way or another to remove the text 'interface{}' would give people a clear way to see what they'd updated and hadn't. (Of course, some code that might be better with generics must still use interface{} for backwards-compatibility reasons, but it can still be updated to confirm that the decision was considered and made.)
That thread also includes an explanation about interface{}:
It's not a special design, but a logical consequence of Go's type declaration syntax.
You can use anonymous interfaces with more than zero methods:
func f(a interface{Foo(); Bar()}) {
a.Foo()
a.Bar()
}
Analogous to how you can use anonymous structs anywhere a type is expected:
func f(a struct{Foo int; Bar string}) {
fmt.Println(a.Foo)
fmt.Println(a.Bar)
}
An empty interface just happens to match all types because all types have at least zero methods.
Removing interface{} would mean removing all interface functionality from the language if you want to stay consistent / don't want to introduce a special case.
interface{} means you can put value of any type, including your own custom type. All types in Go satisfy an empty interface (interface{} is an empty interface).
In your example, Msg field can have value of any type.
Example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Body struct {
Msg interface{}
}
func main() {
b := Body{}
b.Msg = "5"
fmt.Printf("%#v %T \n", b.Msg, b.Msg) // Output: "5" string
b.Msg = 5
fmt.Printf("%#v %T", b.Msg, b.Msg) //Output: 5 int
}
Go Playground
There are already good answers here. Let me add my own too for others who want to understand it intuitively:
Interface
Here's an interface with one method:
type Runner interface {
Run()
}
So any type that has a Run() method satisfies the Runner interface:
type Program struct {
/* fields */
}
func (p Program) Run() {
/* running */
}
func (p Program) Stop() {
/* stopping */
}
Although the Program type has also a Stop method, it still satisfies the Runner interface because all that is needed is to have all of the methods of an interface to satisfy it.
So, it has a Run method and it satisfies the Runner interface.
Empty Interface
Here's a named empty interface without any methods:
type Empty interface {
/* it has no methods */
}
So any type satisfies this interface. Because, no method is needed to satisfy this interface. For example:
// Because, Empty interface has no methods, following types satisfy the Empty interface
var a Empty
a = 5
a = 6.5
a = "hello"
But, does the Program type above satisfy it? Yes:
a = Program{} // ok
interface{} is equal to the Empty interface above.
var b interface{}
// true: a == b
b = a
b = 9
b = "bye"
As you see, there's nothing mysterious about it but it's very easy to abuse. Stay away from it as much as you can.
https://play.golang.org/p/A-vwTddWJ7G
It's called the empty interface and is implemented by all types, which means you can put anything in the Msg field.
Example :
body := Body{3}
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", body) // -> main.Body{Msg:3}
body = Body{"anything"}
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", body) // -> main.Body{Msg:"anything"}
body = Body{body}
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", body) // -> main.Body{Msg:main.Body{Msg:"anything"}}
This is the logical extension of the fact that a type implements an interface as soon as it has all methods of the interface.
From the Golang Specifications:
An interface type specifies a method set called its interface. A
variable of interface type can store a value of any type with a method
set that is any superset of the interface. Such a type is said to
implement the interface. The value of an uninitialized variable of
interface type is nil.
A type implements any interface comprising any subset of its methods
and may therefore implement several distinct interfaces. For instance,
all types implement the empty interface:
interface{}
The concepts to graps are:
Everything has a Type. You can define a new type, let's call it T. Let's say now our Type T has 3 methods: A, B, C.
The set of methods specified for a type is called the "interface type". Let's call it in our example: T_interface. Is equal to T_interface = (A, B, C)
You can create an "interface type" by defining the signature of the methods. MyInterface = (A, )
When you specify a variable of type, "interface type", you can assign to it only types which have an interface that is a superset of your interface.
That means that all the methods contained in MyInterface have to be contained inside T_interface
You can deduce that all the "interface types" of all the types are a superset of the empty interface.
An example that extends the excellent answer by #VonC and the comment by #NickCraig-Wood. interface{} can point to anything and you need a cast/type assertion to use it.
package main
import (
. "fmt"
"strconv"
)
var c = cat("Fish")
var d = dog("Bone")
func main() {
var i interface{} = c
switch i.(type) {
case cat:
c.Eat() // Fish
}
i = d
switch i.(type) {
case dog:
d.Eat() // Bone
}
i = "4.3"
Printf("%T %v\n", i, i) // string 4.3
s, _ := i.(string) // type assertion
f, _ := strconv.ParseFloat(s, 64)
n := int(f) // type conversion
Printf("%T %v\n", n, n) // int 4
}
type cat string
type dog string
func (c cat) Eat() { Println(c) }
func (d dog) Eat() { Println(d) }
i is a variable of an empty interface with a value cat("Fish"). It is legal to create a method value from a value of interface type. See https://golang.org/ref/spec#Interface_types.
A type switch confirms i interface type is cat("Fish") . See https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#type_switch. i is then reassigned to dog("Bone"). A type switch confirms that i interface’s type has changed to dog("Bone") .
You can also ask the compiler to check that the type T implements the interface I by attempting an assignment: var _ I = T{}. See https://golang.org/doc/faq#guarantee_satisfies_interface and https://stackoverflow.com/a/60663003/12817546.
All types implement the empty interface interface{}. See https://talks.golang.org/2012/goforc.slide#44 and https://golang.org/ref/spec#Interface_types . In this example, i is reassigned, this time to a string "4.3".i is then assigned to a new string variable s with i.(string) before s is converted to a float64 type f using strconv. Finally f is converted to n an int type equal to 4. See What is the difference between type conversion and type assertion?
Go's built-in maps and slices, plus the ability to use the empty interface to construct containers (with explicit unboxing) mean in many cases it is possible to write code that does what generics would enable, if less smoothly. See https://golang.org/doc/faq#generics.
Interface is a type which is unknown at compile time
It is a contract between object and the struct type to satisfy with common functionality
or
common functionality acting on different types of struct objects
for example in the below code PrintDetails is a common functionality acting on different types of structs as Engineer,Manager,
Seniorhead
please find the example code
interface examplehttps://play.golang.org/p/QnAqEYGiiF7
A method can bind to any type(int, string, pointer, and so on) in GO
Interface is a way of declear what method one type should have, as long as A type has implement those methods, this can be assigned to this interface.
Interface{} just has no declear of method, so it can accept any type
If I have a custom type that simply redefines a pre-defined type with a name:
type Answer string
And I try to use it in a function that accepts the pre-defined type:
func acceptMe(str string) {
fmt.Println(str)
}
func main() {
type Answer string
var ans Answer = "hello"
// cannot use ans (type Answer) as type string in function argument
acceptMe(ans)
// invalid type assertion: ans.(string) (non-interface type Answer on left)
acceptMe(ans.(string))
// Does work, but I don't understand why if the previous doesn't:
acceptMe(string(ans))
}
Why does the type assertion fail, but the conversion work?
Type assertion works for interfaces only. Interface can have arbitrary underlying type, so we have type assertion and type switch to the rescue. Type assertion returns bool as the second return value to indicate if assertion was successful.
Your custom type Answer can have only one underlying type. You already know the exact type - Answer and the underlying type - string. You don't need assertions, since conversion to the underlying type will always be successful.
Old answer:
Just convert your custom type to string. The conversion will succeed since your custom type has string as an underlying type. The conversion syntax: string(ans). Go Play