I'm currently learning Go and am following a tutorial about how to use Go with Stripe. There is this example code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"github.com/stripe/stripe-go"
"github.com/stripe-go/customer"
)
func main() {
sc := &client.API{}
sc.Init("somekey")
c, _ := sc.Customers.Get("customerid", nil)
// ...
}
What is/could be the reason that sc stores the pointer to the struct and not the struct itself?
[To supplement the comment you received]
While in this case with the small code sample it's hard to say, in most scenarios you'll see non-trivial types passed around by pointer to enable modification. As an anti-example, consider this code which uses a variable of a struct type by value:
type S struct {
ID int
}
func (s S) UpdateID(i int) {
s.ID = i
}
func main() {
s := S{}
s.UpdateID(99)
fmt.Println(s.ID)
}
What do you think this will print? It will print 0, because methods with value receivers cannot modify the underlying type.
There's much information about this in Go - read about pointers, and about how methods should be written. This is a good reference: https://golang.org/doc/faq#methods_on_values_or_pointers, and also https://golang.org/doc/effective_go#pointers_vs_values
Back to your example: typically non-trivial types such as those representing a "client" for some services will be using pointers because method calls on such types should be able to modify the types themselves.
Related
I've the following struct:
type testCase struct {
input string
isValid bool
}
I want to use this struct in multiple tests and input could be either a string or an intetc.
I can convert the int input to string and convert it back to int while processing, or I can define two different structs e.g. testCaseInt and testCaseStruct which will solve my problem but how do I solve this by converting input to an interface?
I'm new to Go and tried Googling about this but couldn't find maybe because I don't know what to search for.
How to declare and use a variable which can store both string and int values in Go?
You cannot. Go's type system (as of Go 1.17) doesn't provide sum types.
You will have to wait for Go 1.18.
tl;dr the trade-off is between static typing and flexible containers.
Up to Go 1.17 you cannot have a struct field with different static types. The best you can have is interface{}, and then assert the dynamic type upon usage. This effectively allows you to have containers of testCases with either type at run time.
type testCase struct {
input interface{}
isValid bool
}
func main() {
// can initialize container with either type
cases := []testCase{{500, false}, {"foobar", true}}
// must type-assert when using
n := cases[0].(int)
s := cases[1].(string)
}
With Go 1.18, you can slightly improve on type safety, in exchange for less flexibility.
Parametrize the struct with a union. This statically restricts the allowed types, but the struct now must be instantiated explicitly, so you can't have containers with different instantiations. This may or may not be compatible with your goals.
type testCase[T int | string] struct {
input T
isValid bool
}
func main() {
// must instantiate with a concrete type
cases := []testCase[int]{
{500, false}, // ok, field takes int value
/*{"foobar", true}*/, // not ok, "foobar" not assignable to int
}
// cases is a slice of testCase with int fields
}
No, instantiating as testCase[any] is a red herring. First of all, any just doesn't satisfy the constraint int | string; even if you relax that, it's actually worse than the Go 1.17 solution, because now instead of using just testCase in function arguments, you must use exactly testCase[any].
Parametrize the struct with a union but still use interface{}/any as field type: (How) can I implement a generic `Either` type in go? . This also doesn't allow to have containers with both types.
In general, if your goal is to have flexible container types (slices, maps, chans) with either type, you have to keep the field as interface{}/any and assert on usage. If you just want to reuse code with static typing at compile-time and you are on Go 1.18, use the union constraint.
Method 1:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
func main() {
var a interface{}
a = "hi"
if valString, ok := a.(string); ok {
fmt.Printf("String: %s", valString)
}
a = 1
if valInt, ok := a.(int); ok {
fmt.Printf("\nInteger: %d", valInt)
}
}
Method 2:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
func main() {
print("hi")
print(1)
}
func print(a interface{}) {
switch t := a.(type) {
case int:
fmt.Printf("Integer: %v\n", t)
case string:
fmt.Printf("String: %v\n", t)
}
}
only you can do is this, change string with interface{}
check on play (it works fine)
https://go.dev/play/p/pwSZiZp5oVx
package main
import "fmt"
type testCase struct {
input interface{}
isValid bool
}
func main() {
test1 := testCase{}
test1.input = "STRING". // <-------------------STRING
fmt.Printf("input: %v \n", test1)
test2 := testCase{}
test2.input = 1 // <-------------------INT
fmt.Printf("input: %v \n", test2)
}
The section of appending to slices on the specification, mentions the following example:
var t []interface{}
t = append(t, 42, 3.1415, "foo") // t == []interface{}{42, 3.1415, "foo"}
I'm confused here, why can we append values of int, float and string to a slice whose elements are of interface type? And why is the result of the append like that? I tried hard/long, but I don't get it.
Because:
all types implement the empty interface
For details read over the ref spec for interfaces.
interface is similar to Object in java where all types/classes/etc are also an Object.
You can see this effect by using reflect:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"reflect"
)
func main() {
var t []interface{}
z := append(t, "asdf", 1, 2.0)
fmt.Println(z)
for i := range z {
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(z[i]))
}
}
Output:
[asdf 1 2]
string
int
float64
Why is it like this? Well, think about serialization especially of JSON objects; the types can be string, int, object, etc. This allows for deserialization without specifying a fully mapped struct (maybe you don't care and want only some of the data, etc). Basically, it allows you to have a form of "weak typing" in Go; while still being able to have strong typing.
As mentioned below, reflect identifies the type for you. When programming though, you may have to do it manually.
I am trying to learn Go, and I found a good resource here.
The example given on method overloading is reproduced below:
package main
import "fmt"
type Human struct {
name string
age int
phone string
}
type Employee struct {
Human
company string
}
func (h *Human) SayHi() {
fmt.Printf("Hi, I am %s you can call me on %s\n", h.name, h.phone)
}
func (e *Employee) SayHi() {
fmt.Printf("Hi, I am %s, I work at %s. Call me on %s\n", e.name,
e.company, e.phone) //Yes you can split into 2 lines here.
}
func main() {
sam := Employee{Human{"Sam", 45, "111-888-XXXX"}, "Golang Inc"}
sam.SayHi()
}
Is it possible to call the "base" struct's (Human's) methods, eg. sam.Human.SayHi() Downcasting doesn't work (because there is no type hierarchy right?)
You can access the embedded struct of a parent struct by calling the member of the parent with the name of the embedded type's name. That's a mouthful, so it's probably easier to demonstrate it.
sam := Employee{Human{"Sam", 45, "111-888-XXXX"}, "Golang Inc"}
sam.SayHi() // calls Employee.SayHi
sam.Human.SayHi() // calls Human.SayHi
Outputs
Hi, I am Sam, I work at Golang Inc. Call me on 111-888-XXXX
Hi, I am Sam you can call me on 111-888-XXXX
This is the nearest approximation to sane polymorphism with both plain and pure virtual functions that I have found thus far. By the very nature of Go's design and the goal at hand, it is ugly but effective.
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type I interface {
foo(s string) // Our "pure virtual" function
bar()
}
type A struct {i I}
type B struct {A}
type C struct {B}
// fk receivers, this is a "member function" so I'll use OO nomenclature
func (this *A) init(i I) {
this.i = i // the i contains (internal) pointers to both an object and a type
}
func (this *A) bar() {
this.i.foo("world")
}
func (this *B) foo(s string) {
fmt.Printf("hello %s\n", s)
}
func (this *C) foo(s string) {
fmt.Printf("goodbye cruel %s\n", s)
}
func main() {
var i I
b := &B{}
b.init(b) // passing b as the parameter implicitly casts it to an I interface object
b.bar()
c := &C{}
c.init(c)
c.bar() // c is a pointer to C, so Golang calls the correct receiver
i = b
i.bar()
i = c
i.bar() // Internally, i contains pointers to the C object and the C type,
// so that the correct receiver is called
}
https://play.golang.org/p/4qBfmJgyuHC
In real OO languages, each object of a class with any virtual functions must have a pointer to a virtual function table or a least type that maps to it. So adding an interface member to the base (embedded) struct only wastes an additional machine word for the pointer that will just point to its self.
Alternatively, we could remove the I interface member from A and the have pure virtual member function just accept the implementation as an argument.
type I interface {
foo(s string)
bar(i I)
}
type A struct {}
type B struct {A}
type C struct {B}
func (this *A) bar(i I) {
i.foo("world")
}
https://play.golang.org/p/9gvaCuqmHS8
But at this point, foo is no longer a pure virtual function, API users could pass any value whose type implements I, and the whole OO concept is broken. The object pointer portion of the I interface passed to bar doesn't need to be the same as this, but then again we didn't need to pass that same value using an init() function, but at least only an API user in the same package would be allowed to set it.
At this point, we have transitioned to the Go way of doing things: compositional programming with dependency injection. This is what Ken Thompson and the other designers thought was a better way to go -- at least for their stated goals. While it is vastly inferior in MANY respects, it does create many advantages and I won't argue those points that here.
Trying to do go koan, i got stuck in understanding the interface(struct) syntax, what exactly
does it do ?
I came up with following fun program, which has further confused me on how is interface casting working :
package main
import "fmt"
type foo interface{ fn() }
type t struct { }
type q struct { }
func (_i t ) fn() { fmt.Print("t","\n") }
func (_i q ) fn() { fmt.Print("q","\n")}
func main() {
_j := t{}
_q := q{}
// This is alright ..
fmt.Print( _j.fn,"\n") //0x4015e0
fmt.Print( _q.fn,"\n") //0x401610
_j.fn() //t
_q.fn() //q
// both pointers same .. why ?
fmt.Print( foo(_j).fn,"\n") //0x401640
fmt.Print( foo(_q).fn,"\n") //0x401640
// but correct fns called .. how ?
foo(_j).fn() //t
foo(_q).fn() //q
// same thing again ...
_fj := foo(_j).fn
_fq := foo(_q).fn
// both pointers same .. as above
fmt.Print( _fj,"\n") //0x401640
fmt.Print( _fq,"\n") //0x401640
// correct fns called .. HOW !
_fj() //t
_fq() //q
}
The pointer are what i'm getting my machin, YMMV.
My question is .. what exactly does interface(struct) returns ?
and how does interface(struct).func , finds the original struct ...
is there some thunk/stub magic going on here?
From here: http://research.swtch.com/interfaces
what exactly does interface(struct) return?
It creates a new interface value (like the one you see on top in the graphic), wrapping a concrete struct value.
how does interface(struct).func find the original struct?
See the data field in the graphic. Most of the time this will be a pointer to an existing value. Sometimes it will contain the value itself if it fits, though.
In the itable you'll see a function table (where fun[0] is).
I assume that on your machine 0x401640 is the address of the respective pointers to fn, which is in that table for foo. Although this is best verified by someone working on the GC compiler suite.
Note that the behaviour you discovered is not strictly defined to be so. Compiler builders can take other approaches to implementing Go interfaces if they like to, as long as the language semantics are preserved.
Edit to answer questions in the comments:
package main
import "fmt"
type foo interface {
fn()
}
type t struct{}
type q struct{}
func (_i t) fn() { fmt.Print("t", "\n") }
func (_i q) fn() { fmt.Print("q", "\n") }
func main() {
_j := t{}
_j1 := t{}
fmt.Println(foo(_j) == foo(_j)) // true
fmt.Println(foo(_j) == foo(_j1)) // true
}
On the diagram you see 3 blocks:
The one on the left side labeled Binary is a concrete type instance, like your struct instances _j and _j1.
The one on the top center is an interface value, this one wraps (read: points to) a concrete value.
The block on the right lower side is the interface definition for Binary underlyings. This is where the jump table / call forwarding table is (itable).
_j and _j1 are two instances of the concrete type t. So there are two of the lower-left blocks somewhere in memory.
Now you decide to wrap both _j and _j1 in interfaces values of type foo; now you have 2 of the top-center blocks somewhere in memory, pointing back at _j and _j1.
In order for the interface value to remember what its underlying type is and where the methods of those types are it keeps a single instance of the lower-right block in memory, to which both interface values for _j and _j1 respectively point to.
In that block you have a jump table to forward method calls made on the interface values to the concrete underlying type's implementation. That's why both are the same.
It's worth mentioning that unlike Java and C++ (not sure about Python), all Go methods are static and the dot-call notation is only syntactic sugar. So _j and _j1 don't have different fn methods, it's the same exact method called with another implicit first parameter which is the receiver on which the method is called.
Can anyone tell me how to create a new instance of Type from a string? Reflect?
There are examples but they are for the older (pre Go 1 versions) of the language [:(]
So, if I understand your question correctly, you are asking about how you can create an object when you just have the name of the type as string. So, for example, you might have a string "MyStruct" and you want to create an object of this type.
Unfortunately, that's not easily possible because Go is a statically typed language and the linker will eliminate dead code (or inline parts of it). So, there is no guarantee, that your final executable will even contain the code of "MyStruct".
You can however, maintain a global map[string]reflect.Type manually. For example by initializing this map in the init() function of your packages which defines such discover-able types. This will also tell the compiler that you are using the types. Afterwards, you can use this map to look up the reflect.Type of the type you want to create and use reflect.New to get a pointer to a new object of that type (stored as a reflect.Value). You can extract the object into an interface with something like this:
reflect.New(yourtype).Elem().Interface()
Elem() will de-reference the pointer and Interface() will return the reflected value as an interface{}. See The Laws of Reflection for further details.
PS: There might be a better way to structure your program which doesn't even require reflection and which let the compiler catch more errors. Have you considered using a factory method for example? An other easy solution might be to maintain a map[string]func() interface{} of functions which can be invoked to create a new object with that name.
Factory with predefined constructors can be based on something like:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Creator func() interface{}
type A struct {
a int
}
type B struct {
a bool
}
func NewA() interface{} {
return new(A)
}
func NewB() interface{} {
return new(B)
}
func main() {
m := map[string]Creator{}
m["A"] = NewA
m["B"] = NewB
for k, v := range m {
fmt.Printf("%v -> %v\n", k, v())
}
}