Let's say I have this A struct that implements Setter interface:
type Setter interface {
Set(key string, value string)
}
type A struct {
m map[string]string
}
func (a *A) Set(key string, value string) {
a.m[key] = value
}
And I have one different struct that holds some implementation of Setter interface
type Holder struct {
val Setter
}
h := Holder{
val: &A{ map[string]string{} },
}
What i need is to get a copy of the h.val struct with all values saved.
I have already tried the following solution but it did not work, resulting with panic: assignment to entry in nil map
(We have defined the map when initiallizing h, so by running h.val.Set(k, v) we won't get any errors)
l := reflect.New(
reflect.ValueOf(h.val).Elem().Type(),
).Interface().(Setter)
l.Set("A", "B")
How can I create a copy of a struct without knowing which fields it consists of, only knowing the interface it implements and having it's value in a variable?
p.s. Adding Clone method to Setter interface is not a preferred solution
Adding Clone method to Setter interface is not a preferred solution
in all generality, since only the Setter implementation knows how it should be "cloned", there isn't much choice.
For example : should "cloning" an A struct create a new struct pointing at the same mapping ? or should it duplicate the mapping ?
If your intention is really to clone, you probably want the second, but you can see it will quickly fall outside the scope of a simple reflect operation.
If your code actually only deals with A structs, you may pass explicit A values. You will probably still need a .Clone() method or a Clone(a *A) function.
If your only issue is that a zero value for A is invalid, you can fix Set() :
func (a *A) Set(key string, value string) {
if a.m == nil {
a.m = make(map[string]string)
}
a.m[key] = value
}
Related
There are already several Q&As on this "X does not implement Y (... method has a pointer receiver)" thing, but to me, they seems to be talking about different things, and not applying to my specific case.
So, instead of making the question very specific, I'm making it broad and abstract -- Seems like there are several different cases that can make this error happen, can someone summary it up please?
I.e., how to avoid the problem, and if it occurs, what are the possibilities? Thx.
This compile-time error arises when you try to assign or pass (or convert) a concrete type to an interface type; and the type itself does not implement the interface, only a pointer to the type.
Short summary: An assignment to a variable of interface type is valid if the value being assigned implements the interface it is assigned to. It implements it if its method set is a superset of the interface. The method set of pointer types includes methods with both pointer and non-pointer receiver. The method set of non-pointer types only includes methods with non-pointer receiver.
Let's see an example:
type Stringer interface {
String() string
}
type MyType struct {
value string
}
func (m *MyType) String() string { return m.value }
The Stringer interface type has one method only: String(). Any value that is stored in an interface value Stringer must have this method. We also created a MyType, and we created a method MyType.String() with pointer receiver. This means the String() method is in the method set of the *MyType type, but not in that of MyType.
When we attempt to assign a value of MyType to a variable of type Stringer, we get the error in question:
m := MyType{value: "something"}
var s Stringer
s = m // cannot use m (type MyType) as type Stringer in assignment:
// MyType does not implement Stringer (String method has pointer receiver)
But everything is ok if we try to assign a value of type *MyType to Stringer:
s = &m
fmt.Println(s)
And we get the expected outcome (try it on the Go Playground):
something
So the requirements to get this compile-time error:
A value of non-pointer concrete type being assigned (or passed or converted)
An interface type being assigned to (or passed to, or converted to)
The concrete type has the required method of the interface, but with a pointer receiver
Possibilities to resolve the issue:
A pointer to the value must be used, whose method set will include the method with the pointer receiver
Or the receiver type must be changed to non-pointer, so the method set of the non-pointer concrete type will also contain the method (and thus satisfy the interface). This may or may not be viable, as if the method has to modify the value, a non-pointer receiver is not an option.
Structs and embedding
When using structs and embedding, often it's not "you" that implement an interface (provide a method implementation), but a type you embed in your struct. Like in this example:
type MyType2 struct {
MyType
}
m := MyType{value: "something"}
m2 := MyType2{MyType: m}
var s Stringer
s = m2 // Compile-time error again
Again, compile-time error, because the method set of MyType2 does not contain the String() method of the embedded MyType, only the method set of *MyType2, so the following works (try it on the Go Playground):
var s Stringer
s = &m2
We can also make it work, if we embed *MyType and using only a non-pointer MyType2 (try it on the Go Playground):
type MyType2 struct {
*MyType
}
m := MyType{value: "something"}
m2 := MyType2{MyType: &m}
var s Stringer
s = m2
Also, whatever we embed (either MyType or *MyType), if we use a pointer *MyType2, it will always work (try it on the Go Playground):
type MyType2 struct {
*MyType
}
m := MyType{value: "something"}
m2 := MyType2{MyType: &m}
var s Stringer
s = &m2
Relevant section from the spec (from section Struct types):
Given a struct type S and a type named T, promoted methods are included in the method set of the struct as follows:
If S contains an anonymous field T, the method sets of S and *S both include promoted methods with receiver T. The method set of *S also includes promoted methods with receiver *T.
If S contains an anonymous field *T, the method sets of S and *S both include promoted methods with receiver T or *T.
So in other words: if we embed a non-pointer type, the method set of the non-pointer embedder only gets the methods with non-pointer receivers (from the embedded type).
If we embed a pointer type, the method set of the non-pointer embedder gets methods with both pointer and non-pointer receivers (from the embedded type).
If we use a pointer value to the embedder, regardless of whether the embedded type is pointer or not, the method set of the pointer to the embedder always gets methods with both the pointer and non-pointer receivers (from the embedded type).
Note:
There is a very similar case, namely when you have an interface value which wraps a value of MyType, and you try to type assert another interface value from it, Stringer. In this case the assertion will not hold for the reasons described above, but we get a slightly different runtime-error:
m := MyType{value: "something"}
var i interface{} = m
fmt.Println(i.(Stringer))
Runtime panic (try it on the Go Playground):
panic: interface conversion: main.MyType is not main.Stringer:
missing method String
Attempting to convert instead of type assert, we get the compile-time error we're talking about:
m := MyType{value: "something"}
fmt.Println(Stringer(m))
To keep it short and simple, let say you have a Loader interface and a WebLoader that implements this interface.
package main
import "fmt"
// Loader defines a content loader
type Loader interface {
load(src string) string
}
// WebLoader is a web content loader
type WebLoader struct{}
// load loads the content of a page
func (w *WebLoader) load(src string) string {
return fmt.Sprintf("I loaded this page %s", src)
}
func main() {
webLoader := WebLoader{}
loadContent(webLoader)
}
func loadContent(loader Loader) {
loader.load("google.com")
}
The above code will give you this compile time error
./main.go:20:13: cannot use webLoader (type WebLoader) as type Loader
in argument to loadContent:
WebLoader does not implement Loader (Load method has pointer receiver)
To fix it you only need to change webLoader := WebLoader{} to following:
webLoader := &WebLoader{}
Why this will fix the issue? Because you defined this function func (w *WebLoader) Load to accept a pointer receiver. For more explanation please read #icza and #karora answers
Another case when I have seen this kind of thing happening is if I want to create an interface where some methods will modify an internal value and others will not.
type GetterSetter interface {
GetVal() int
SetVal(x int) int
}
Something that then implements this interface could be like:
type MyTypeA struct {
a int
}
func (m MyTypeA) GetVal() int {
return a
}
func (m *MyTypeA) SetVal(newVal int) int {
int oldVal = m.a
m.a = newVal
return oldVal
}
So the implementing type will likely have some methods which are pointer receivers and some which are not and since I have quite a variety of these various things that are GetterSetters I'd like to check in my tests that they are all doing the expected.
If I were to do something like this:
myTypeInstance := MyType{ 7 }
... maybe some code doing other stuff ...
var f interface{} = myTypeInstance
_, ok := f.(GetterSetter)
if !ok {
t.Fail()
}
Then I won't get the aforementioned "X does not implement Y (Z method has pointer receiver)" error (since it is a compile-time error) but I will have a bad day chasing down exactly why my test is failing...
Instead I have to make sure I do the type check using a pointer, such as:
var f interface{} = new(&MyTypeA)
...
Or:
myTypeInstance := MyType{ 7 }
var f interface{} = &myTypeInstance
...
Then all is happy with the tests!
But wait! In my code, perhaps I have methods which accept a GetterSetter somewhere:
func SomeStuff(g GetterSetter, x int) int {
if x > 10 {
return g.GetVal() + 1
}
return g.GetVal()
}
If I call these methods from inside another type method, this will generate the error:
func (m MyTypeA) OtherThing(x int) {
SomeStuff(m, x)
}
Either of the following calls will work:
func (m *MyTypeA) OtherThing(x int) {
SomeStuff(m, x)
}
func (m MyTypeA) OtherThing(x int) {
SomeStuff(&m, x)
}
Extend from above answers (Thanks for all of your answers)
I think it would be more instinctive to show all the methods of pointer / non pointer struct.
Here is the playground code.
https://play.golang.org/p/jkYrqF4KyIf
To summarize all the example.
Pointer struct type would include all non pointer / pointer receiver methods
Non pointer struct type would only include non pointer receiver methods.
For embedded struct
non pointer outer struct + non pointer embedded struct => only non pointer receiver methods.
non pointer outer struct + pointer embedded struct / pointer outer struct + non pointer embedded struct / pointer outer struct + pointer embedded struct => all embedded methods
I have an interface Model, which is implemented by struct Person.
To get a model instance, I have the following helper functions:
func newModel(c string) Model {
switch c {
case "person":
return newPerson()
}
return nil
}
func newPerson() *Person {
return &Person{}
}
The above approach allows me to return a properly typed Person instance (can easily add new models later with same approach).
When I attempted to do something similar for returning a slice of models, I get an error. Code:
func newModels(c string) []Model {
switch c {
case "person":
return newPersons()
}
return nil
}
func newPersons() *[]Person {
var models []Person
return &models
}
Go complains with: cannot use newPersons() (type []Person) as type []Model in return argument
My goal is to return a slice of whatever model type is requested (whether []Person, []FutureModel, []Terminator2000, w/e). What am I missing, and how can I properly implement such a solution?
This is very similar to a question I just answered: https://stackoverflow.com/a/12990540/727643
The short answer is that you are correct. A slice of structs is not equal to a slice of an interface the struct implements.
A []Person and a []Model have different memory layouts. This is because the types they are slices of have different memory layouts. A Model is an interface value which means that in memory it is two words in size. One word for the type information, the other for the data. A Person is a struct whose size depends on the fields it contains. In order to convert from a []Person to a []Model, you will need to loop over the array and do a type conversion for each element.
Since this conversion is an O(n) operation and would result in a new slice being created, Go refuses to do it implicitly. You can do it explicitly with the following code.
models := make([]Model, len(persons))
for i, v := range persons {
models[i] = Model(v)
}
return models
And as dskinner pointed out, you most likely want a slice of pointers and not a pointer to a slice. A pointer to a slice is not normally needed.
*[]Person // pointer to slice
[]*Person // slice of pointers
Maybe this is an issue with your return type *[]Person, where it should actually be []*Person so to reference that each index of the slice is a reference to a Person, and where a slice [] is in itself a reference to an array.
Check out the following example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Model interface {
Name() string
}
type Person struct {}
func (p *Person) Name() string {
return "Me"
}
func NewPersons() (models []*Person) {
return models
}
func main() {
var p Model
p = new(Person)
fmt.Println(p.Name())
arr := NewPersons()
arr = append(arr, new(Person))
fmt.Println(arr[0].Name())
}
As Stephen already answered the question and you're a beginner I emphasize on giving advises.
A better way of working with go's interfaces is not to have a constructor returning
the interface as you might be used to from other languages, like java, but to have
a constructor for each object independently, as they implement the interface implicitly.
Instead of
newModel(type string) Model { ... }
you should do
newPerson() *Person { ... }
newPolitician() *Politician { ... }
with Person and Politician both implementing the methods of Model.
You can still use Person or Politician everywhere where a Model
is accepted, but you can also implement other interfaces.
With your method you would be limited to Model until you do a manual conversion to
another interface type.
Suppose I have a Person which implements the method Walk() and a Model implements ShowOff(), the following would not work straight forward:
newModel("person").ShowOff()
newModel("person").Walk() // Does not compile, Model has no method Walk
However this would:
newPerson().ShowOff()
newPerson().Walk()
As others have already answered, []T is a distinct type. I'd just like to add that a simple utility can be used to convert them generically.
import "reflect"
// Convert a slice or array of a specific type to array of interface{}
func ToIntf(s interface{}) []interface{} {
v := reflect.ValueOf(s)
// There is no need to check, we want to panic if it's not slice or array
intf := make([]interface{}, v.Len())
for i := 0; i < v.Len(); i++ {
intf[i] = v.Index(i).Interface()
}
return intf
}
Now, you can use it like this:
ToIntf([]int{1,2,3})
Types T and []T are distinct types and distinct are their methods as well, even when satisfying the same interface. IOW, every type satisfying Model must implement all of the Model's methods by itself - the method receiver can be only one specific type.
Even if Go's implementation allowed this, it's unfortunately unsound: You can't assign a []Person to a variable of type []Model because a []Model has different capabilities. For example, suppose we also have Animal which implements Model:
var people []Person = ...
var models []Model = people // not allowed in real Go
models[0] = Animal{..} // ???
var person Person = people[0] // !!!
If we allow line 2, then line 3 should also work because models can perfectly well store an Animal. And line 4 should still work because people stores Persons. But then we end up with a variable of type Person holding an Animal!
Java actually allows the equivalent of line 2, and it's widely considered a mistake. (The error is caught at run time; line 3 would throw an ArrayStoreException.)
Is it possible to define an immutable struct in Golang? Once initialized then only read operation on struct's field, no modification of field values. If so, how to do that.
It is possible to make a struct read-only outside of its package by making its members non-exported and providing readers. For example:
package mypackage
type myReadOnly struct {
value int
}
func (s myReadOnly) Value() int {
return s.value
}
func NewMyReadonly(value int) myReadOnly{
return myReadOnly{value: value}
}
And usage:
myReadonly := mypackage.NewMyReadonly(3)
fmt.Println(myReadonly.Value()) // Prints 3
There is no way to mark fields/variables as read only in a generic way. The only thing you could do is marking fields/variable as unexported (first letter small) and provide public getters to prevent other packages editing variables.
There is no way to define immutable structures in Go: struct fields are mutable and the const keyword doesn't apply to them. Go makes it easy however to copy an entire struct with a simple assignment, so we may think that passing arguments by value is all that is needed to have immutability at the cost of copying.
However, and unsurprisingly, this does not copy values referenced by pointers. And the since built-in collections (map, slice and array) are references and are mutable, copying a struct that contains one of these just copies the pointer to the same underlying memory.
Example :
type S struct {
A string
B []string
}
func main() {
x := S{"x-A", []string{"x-B"}}
y := x // copy the struct
y.A = "y-A"
y.B[0] = "y-B"
fmt.Println(x, y)
// Outputs "{x-A [y-B]} {y-A [y-B]}" -- x was modified!
}
Note : So you have to be extremely careful about this, and not assume immutability if you pass a parameter by value.
There are some deepcopy libraries that attempt to solve this using (slow) reflection, but they fall short since private fields can't be accessed with reflection. So defensive copying to avoid race conditions will be difficult, requiring lots of boilerplate code. Go doesn't even have a Clone interface that would standardize this.
Credit : https://bluxte.net/
if you write a functional struct by golang, it must be an immutable struct, eg
you can write maybe struct definite
type Maybe[T any] struct {
v T
valid bool
}
func (m Maybe[T]) Just() T {
return m.v
}
func (m Maybe[T]) Nothing() bool {
return m.valid == false
}
func Just[T any](v T) Maybe[T] {
return Maybe[T]{
v: v,
valid: true,
}
}
func Nothing[T any]() Maybe[T] {
return Maybe[T]{
valid: false,
}
}
the maybe struct is a immutable struct
There are multiple answers/techniques to the below question:
How to set default values to golang structs?
How to initialize structs in golang
I have a couple of answers but further discussion is required.
One possible idea is to write separate constructor function
//Something is the structure we work with
type Something struct {
Text string
DefaultText string
}
// NewSomething create new instance of Something
func NewSomething(text string) Something {
something := Something{}
something.Text = text
something.DefaultText = "default text"
return something
}
Force a method to get the struct (the constructor way).
From this post:
A good design is to make your type unexported, but provide an exported constructor function like NewMyType() in which you can properly initialize your struct / type. Also return an interface type and not a concrete type, and the interface should contain everything others want to do with your value. And your concrete type must implement that interface of course.
This can be done by simply making the type itself unexported. You can export the function NewSomething and even the fields Text and DefaultText, but just don't export the struct type something.
Another way to customize it for you own module is by using a Config struct to set default values (Option 5 in the link). Not a good way though.
One problem with option 1 in answer from
Victor Zamanian is that if the type isn't exported then users of your package can't declare it as the type for function parameters etc. One way around this would be to export an interface instead of the struct e.g.
package candidate
// Exporting interface instead of struct
type Candidate interface {}
// Struct is not exported
type candidate struct {
Name string
Votes uint32 // Defaults to 0
}
// We are forced to call the constructor to get an instance of candidate
func New(name string) Candidate {
return candidate{name, 0} // enforce the default value here
}
Which lets us declare function parameter types using the exported Candidate interface.
The only disadvantage I can see from this solution is that all our methods need to be declared in the interface definition, but you could argue that that is good practice anyway.
There is a way of doing this with tags, which
allows for multiple defaults.
Assume you have the following struct, with 2 default
tags default0 and default1.
type A struct {
I int `default0:"3" default1:"42"`
S string `default0:"Some String..." default1:"Some Other String..."`
}
Now it's possible to Set the defaults.
func main() {
ptr := &A{}
Set(ptr, "default0")
fmt.Printf("ptr.I=%d ptr.S=%s\n", ptr.I, ptr.S)
// ptr.I=3 ptr.S=Some String...
Set(ptr, "default1")
fmt.Printf("ptr.I=%d ptr.S=%s\n", ptr.I, ptr.S)
// ptr.I=42 ptr.S=Some Other String...
}
Here's the complete program in a playground.
If you're interested in a more complex example, say with
slices and maps, then, take a look at creasty/defaultse
From https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#composite_literals:
Sometimes the zero value isn't good enough and an initializing constructor is necessary, as in this example derived from package os.
func NewFile(fd int, name string) *File {
if fd < 0 {
return nil
}
f := new(File)
f.fd = fd
f.name = name
f.dirinfo = nil
f.nepipe = 0
return f
}
What about making something like this:
// Card is the structure we work with
type Card struct {
Html js.Value
DefaultText string `default:"html"` // this only works with strings
}
// Init is the main function that initiate the structure, and return it
func (c Card) Init() Card {
c.Html = Document.Call("createElement", "div")
return c
}
Then call it as:
c := new(Card).Init()
I found this thread very helpful and educational. The other answers already provide good guidance, but I wanted to summarize my takeaways with an easy to reference (i.e. copy-paste) approach:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
// Define an interface that is exported by your package.
type Foo interface {
GetValue() string // A function that'll return the value initialized with a default.
SetValue(v string) // A function that can update the default value.
}
// Define a struct type that is not exported by your package.
type foo struct {
value string
}
// A factory method to initialize an instance of `foo`,
// the unexported struct, with a default value.
func NewFoo() Foo {
return &foo{
value: "I am the DEFAULT value.",
}
}
// Implementation of the interface's `GetValue`
// for struct `foo`.
func (f *foo) GetValue() string {
return f.value
}
// Implementation of the interface's `SetValue`
// for struct `foo`.
func (f *foo) SetValue(v string) {
f.value = v
}
func main() {
f := NewFoo()
fmt.Printf("value: `%s`\n", f.GetValue())
f.SetValue("I am the UPDATED value.")
fmt.Printf("value: `%s`\n", f.GetValue())
}
One way to do that is:
// declare a type
type A struct {
Filed1 string
Field2 map[string]interface{}
}
So whenever you need a new variable of your custom defined type just call the NewA function also you can parameterise the function to optionally assign the values to the struct fields
func NewA() *A {
return &A{
Filed1: "",
Field2: make(map[string]interface{}),
}
}
for set default values in Go structs we use anonymous struct:
Person := struct {
name string
age int
city string
}{
name: "Peter",
age: 21,
city: "Noida",
}
fmt.Println(Person)
Structs
An easy way to make this program better is to use a struct. A struct is a type which contains named fields. For example we could represent a Circle like this:
type Circle struct {
x float64
y float64
r float64
}
The type keyword introduces a new type. It's followed by the name of the type (Circle), the keyword struct to indicate that we are defining a struct type and a list of fields inside of curly braces. Each field has a name and a type. Like with functions we can collapse fields that have the same type:
type Circle struct {
x, y, r float64
}
Initialization
We can create an instance of our new Circle type in a variety of ways:
var c Circle
Like with other data types, this will create a local Circle variable that is by default set to zero. For a struct zero means each of the fields is set to their corresponding zero value (0 for ints, 0.0 for floats, "" for strings, nil for pointers, …) We can also use the new function:
c := new(Circle)
This allocates memory for all the fields, sets each of them to their zero value and returns a pointer. (*Circle) More often we want to give each of the fields a value. We can do this in two ways. Like this:
c := Circle{x: 0, y: 0, r: 5}
Or we can leave off the field names if we know the order they were defined:
c := Circle{0, 0, 5}
type Config struct {
AWSRegion string `default:"us-west-2"`
}
I have an interface Model, which is implemented by struct Person.
To get a model instance, I have the following helper functions:
func newModel(c string) Model {
switch c {
case "person":
return newPerson()
}
return nil
}
func newPerson() *Person {
return &Person{}
}
The above approach allows me to return a properly typed Person instance (can easily add new models later with same approach).
When I attempted to do something similar for returning a slice of models, I get an error. Code:
func newModels(c string) []Model {
switch c {
case "person":
return newPersons()
}
return nil
}
func newPersons() *[]Person {
var models []Person
return &models
}
Go complains with: cannot use newPersons() (type []Person) as type []Model in return argument
My goal is to return a slice of whatever model type is requested (whether []Person, []FutureModel, []Terminator2000, w/e). What am I missing, and how can I properly implement such a solution?
This is very similar to a question I just answered: https://stackoverflow.com/a/12990540/727643
The short answer is that you are correct. A slice of structs is not equal to a slice of an interface the struct implements.
A []Person and a []Model have different memory layouts. This is because the types they are slices of have different memory layouts. A Model is an interface value which means that in memory it is two words in size. One word for the type information, the other for the data. A Person is a struct whose size depends on the fields it contains. In order to convert from a []Person to a []Model, you will need to loop over the array and do a type conversion for each element.
Since this conversion is an O(n) operation and would result in a new slice being created, Go refuses to do it implicitly. You can do it explicitly with the following code.
models := make([]Model, len(persons))
for i, v := range persons {
models[i] = Model(v)
}
return models
And as dskinner pointed out, you most likely want a slice of pointers and not a pointer to a slice. A pointer to a slice is not normally needed.
*[]Person // pointer to slice
[]*Person // slice of pointers
Maybe this is an issue with your return type *[]Person, where it should actually be []*Person so to reference that each index of the slice is a reference to a Person, and where a slice [] is in itself a reference to an array.
Check out the following example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Model interface {
Name() string
}
type Person struct {}
func (p *Person) Name() string {
return "Me"
}
func NewPersons() (models []*Person) {
return models
}
func main() {
var p Model
p = new(Person)
fmt.Println(p.Name())
arr := NewPersons()
arr = append(arr, new(Person))
fmt.Println(arr[0].Name())
}
As Stephen already answered the question and you're a beginner I emphasize on giving advises.
A better way of working with go's interfaces is not to have a constructor returning
the interface as you might be used to from other languages, like java, but to have
a constructor for each object independently, as they implement the interface implicitly.
Instead of
newModel(type string) Model { ... }
you should do
newPerson() *Person { ... }
newPolitician() *Politician { ... }
with Person and Politician both implementing the methods of Model.
You can still use Person or Politician everywhere where a Model
is accepted, but you can also implement other interfaces.
With your method you would be limited to Model until you do a manual conversion to
another interface type.
Suppose I have a Person which implements the method Walk() and a Model implements ShowOff(), the following would not work straight forward:
newModel("person").ShowOff()
newModel("person").Walk() // Does not compile, Model has no method Walk
However this would:
newPerson().ShowOff()
newPerson().Walk()
As others have already answered, []T is a distinct type. I'd just like to add that a simple utility can be used to convert them generically.
import "reflect"
// Convert a slice or array of a specific type to array of interface{}
func ToIntf(s interface{}) []interface{} {
v := reflect.ValueOf(s)
// There is no need to check, we want to panic if it's not slice or array
intf := make([]interface{}, v.Len())
for i := 0; i < v.Len(); i++ {
intf[i] = v.Index(i).Interface()
}
return intf
}
Now, you can use it like this:
ToIntf([]int{1,2,3})
Types T and []T are distinct types and distinct are their methods as well, even when satisfying the same interface. IOW, every type satisfying Model must implement all of the Model's methods by itself - the method receiver can be only one specific type.
Even if Go's implementation allowed this, it's unfortunately unsound: You can't assign a []Person to a variable of type []Model because a []Model has different capabilities. For example, suppose we also have Animal which implements Model:
var people []Person = ...
var models []Model = people // not allowed in real Go
models[0] = Animal{..} // ???
var person Person = people[0] // !!!
If we allow line 2, then line 3 should also work because models can perfectly well store an Animal. And line 4 should still work because people stores Persons. But then we end up with a variable of type Person holding an Animal!
Java actually allows the equivalent of line 2, and it's widely considered a mistake. (The error is caught at run time; line 3 would throw an ArrayStoreException.)