I am declcaring an interface in go
type comparable interface {
GetKey() float32
Compare(comparable) int
}
and implementing this interface by creating this structure
type Note struct {
id int
text string
priority float32
}
func (note Note) GetKey() float32 {
return note.priority
}
func (note Note) Compare(note2 Note) int {
if note.priority < note2.priority {
return -1
} else if note.priority > note2.priority {
return 1
} else {
return 0
}
}
But when I am passing note object into a function which accepts comparable interface as a parameter I am getting "Wrong type for method compare" error.
Am I missing something or doing something wrong? Please help
Thanks in advance
You are not implementing comparable since you use Note in compare method not comparable. Compare(note2 Note) is not same as Compare(comparable).
Use comparable in Compare method to implement comaprable interface
func (note Note) Compare(note2 comparable) int {
if note.GetKey()< note2.GetKey() {
return -1
} else if note.GetKey()> note2.GetKey() {
return 1
} else {
return 0
}
}
You declared comparable as having a method with signature Compare(comparable) int.
So func (note Note) Compare(note2 Note) ought to be func (note Note) Compare(note2 comparable), to match the interface.
Otherwise, you're not implementing the same interface. To implement comparable, your Compare method needs to take any comparable, but the one you declared for Note takes only Note, and not any comparable. It's a different method.
Here's a modified-to-work, minimal example based on your code: https://play.golang.org/p/ajH1s5gbGcQ
Related
Let's say I have two different structs:
type One struct {
Id string
// Other fields
}
type Two struct {
Id string
// Other fields
}
Is it possible to define a function that accepts both One and Two without explicitly listing them as options?
E.g. I am looking for something like this:
type ModelWithId struct {
Id string
}
func Test[M ModelWithId](m M) {
fmt.PrintLn(m.Id)
}
one := One { Id: "1" }
Test(one) // Prints 1
I don't want to use funcTest[M One | Two](m M), because I'll likely have 10+ structs and I don't want to come back to the function every time I add a new struct to the codebase.
Generics constraints the type parameter behaviours using methods, so you need to rewrite your code as:
type One struct {
id string
}
func (o *One) Id() string {
return o.id
}
then your use site would become:
type ModelWithId interface {
Id() string
}
func Test[M ModelWithId](m M) {
fmt.Println(m.Id())
}
In php exists a __toString() method that allow to make a taylored representation of an object. For example:
final class Foo
{
public function __toString()
{
return "custom representation";
}
}
$foo = new Foo();
echo $foo; // this will output "custom representation"
In Go it is possible to create a struct:
type Person struct {
surname string
name string
}
sensorario := Person{
"Senso",
"Rario",
}
fmt.Println(sensorario) // this will output "{Senso Rario}"
It is possible to add a toString method to the struct?
EDIT:
I've found this solution:
func (p *Person) toString() string {
return p.surname + " " + p.name
}
fmt.Println(simone.toString())
But what I am looking for, is the way to replace
fmt.Println(simone.toString())
with
fmt.Println(simone)
I think you're looking for the Stringer interface.
type Stringer interface {
String() string
}
Any type that implements this interface will be automatically stringified using it by many different libraries, obviously including the fmt package, and will indeed work in your example of fmt.Println.
I'd like to know how to retrieve the parent struct of an instance.
I have no idea how to implement this.
For instance:
type Hood struct {
name string
houses []House
}
type House struct {
name string
people int16
}
func (h *Hood) addHouse(house House) []House {
h.houses = append(h.houses, house)
return h.houses
}
func (house *House) GetHood() Hood {
//Get hood where the house is situated
return ...?
}
Cheers
You should retain a pointer to the hood.
type House struct {
hood *Hood
name string
people int16
}
and when you append the house
func (h *Hood) addHouse(house House) []House {
house.hood = h
h.houses = append(h.houses, house)
return h.houses
}
then you can easily change the GetHood, although a getter may not be required at that point.
func (house *House) GetHood() Hood {
return *house.hood
}
In Swift you can define an enum and give it a property via an associated value, e.g.:
protocol SizeEnum {
var length : Double? { get } // Length should be >= 0 - has to be an Optional for errors
}
enum SizesEnum : SizeEnum {
case Short(length : Double) // 0 <= length <= maxShort
case Long(length : Double) // length > maxShort
private static let maxShort = 1.0
var length : Double? {
get {
switch self {
case let .Short(length):
if length >= 0 && length <= SizesEnum.maxShort { // Need to error check every access
return length
}
case let .Long(length):
if length > SizesEnum.maxShort { // Need to error check every access
return length
}
}
return nil // There was an error
}
}
}
SizesEnum.Short(length: 0.5).length // [Some 0.5]
SizesEnum.Short(length: 2).length // nil
SizesEnum.Long(length: 2).length // [Some 2.0]
SizesEnum.Long(length: -1).length // nil
However this is not ideal because:
The error checking for the length parameter can only be done on access, you cannot intercept the init
The length parameter is surprisingly long winded
An alternative, which seems better to me, is to use a static factory, e.g.:
protocol SizeStruct {
var length : Double { get } // Length should be >= 0 - is *not* an Optional
}
struct SizesStruct : SizeStruct {
static func Short(length : Double) -> SizeStruct? {
if length >= 0 && length <= maxShort { // Check at creation only
return SizesStruct(length)
}
return nil
}
static func Long(length : Double) -> SizeStruct? {
if length > maxShort { // Check at creation only
return SizesStruct(length)
}
return nil
}
let length : Double
private static let maxShort = 1.0
private init(_ length : Double) {
self.length = length
}
}
SizesStruct.Short(0.5)?.length // [Some 0.5]
SizesStruct.Short(2)?.length // nil
SizesStruct.Long(2)?.length // [Some 2.0]
SizesStruct.Long(-1)?.length // nil
Given that the static factory solution is neater, when would I actually use an enum with values? Am I missing something? Is there a killer use case?
In response to drewag
For Optional other languages, e.g. Java and Scala, you use factories, the Java version is described here: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Optional.html the factory is the of method.
In Swift you would do something like:
class Opt { // Note only Some stores the value, not None
//class let None = Opt() - class variables not supported in beta 4!
class Some<T> : Opt {
let value : T
init(_ value : T) {
self.value = value
}
}
private init() {} // Stop any other ways of making an Opt
}
Opt.Some(1).value // 1
This is probably the optimal example for enum since no error checking is required, but even so the factory version is competitive. The Optional example is so straightforward you don't even need a factory, you just create the Somes directly. Note how None doesn't use any storage.
The Barcode example shows how much better the factory technique is; in practice not all collections of 4 Ints are a valid UPCA and not all Strings are a valid QR Code, therefore you need error checking which is painful with enums. Here is the factory version:
class Barcode { // Note seperate storage for each case
class UPCABarcode : Barcode {
let type : Int, l : Int, r : Int, check : Int
private init(type : Int, l : Int, r : Int, check : Int) {
(self.type, self.l, self.r, self.check) = (type, l, r, check)
}
}
class func UPCA(#type : Int, l : Int, r : Int, check : Int) -> UPCABarcode? {
if ok(type: type, l: l, r: r, check: check) {
return UPCABarcode(type: type, l: l, r: r, check: check)
}
return nil
}
class func QRCode(#s : String) -> Barcode? { // Have not expanded this case; use same pattern as UPCA
return Barcode()
}
private init() {} // Prevent any other types of Barcode
class func ok(#type : Int, l : Int, r : Int, check : Int) -> Bool {
return true // In practice has to check supported type, range of L and R, and if check digit is correct
}
}
Barcode.UPCA(type: 0, l: 1, r: 2, check: 3)
If you use the enum version of Barcode then every time you use a Barcode you have to check its validity because there is nothing to stop invalid barcodes. Whereas the factory version does the checking at creation. Note how Barcode has no storage and UPCA has custom storage. I didn't code QRCode because it uses the same design pattern as UPCA.
My impression is that the enum version looks great in tutorials but soon becomes painful in practice because of error handling.
I believe the biggest killer use case is Optional. It is built into the language, but an optional is simply an enum:
enum Optional<T> {
case None
case Some(T)
}
In this case, a member variable like value would not make sense because in the None case, there is literally no value.
Also, right out of the Swift tour:
enum Barcode {
case UPCA(Int, Int, Int, Int)
case QRCode(String)
}
With a struct, there would be a lot of wasted member variables and a confusing interface to model this kind of data.
I don't believe it makes sense to use an associated value for an enum if the same type is used for every case. In that case a member variable is cleaner. The focus of associated values is to more accurately model certain types of data. The most useful cases are ones where different instances of a type can have different data associated with them. This could potentially be done with subclasses but then one would need to downcast to access more specific variables and the declarations would be much more verbose. Enums are a concise way to represent this type of data.
Another example could be web requests:
struct NetRequest {
enum Method {
case GET
case POST(String)
}
var URL: String
var method: Method
}
var getRequest = NetRequest(URL: "http://drewag.me", method: .GET)
var postRequest = NetRequest(URL: "http://drewag.me", method: .POST("{\"username\": \"drewag\"}"))
When I think of "enum" I don't think of "factory" at all. Normally factories are for larger more complex class structures. Enums are supposed to be very small pieces of data with little logic.
I want to specify a type constraint that the type should be a raw value enum:
enum SomeEnum: Int {
case One, Two, Three
}
class SomeProtocol<E: enum<Int>> { // <- won't compile
func doSomething(e: E) {
compute(e.toRaw())
}
}
How can I do it in Swift? (I used the F# syntax for example)
enum SomeEnum: Int {
case One, Two, Three
}
class SomeClass<E: RawRepresentable where E.RawValue == Int>{
func doSomething(e: E) {
print(e.rawValue)
}
}
class SomeEnumClass : SomeClass<SomeEnum> {
}
or directly
class SomeOtherClass{
func doSomething<E: RawRepresentable where E.RawValue == Int>(e: E) {
print(e.rawValue)
}
}
UPDATE for swift3:
enum SomeEnum: Int {
case One, Two, Three
}
class SomeClass<E: RawRepresentable> where E.RawValue == Int {
func doSomething(e: E) {
print(e.rawValue)
}
}
class SomeEnumClass : SomeClass<SomeEnum> {
}
resp.
class SomeOtherClass{
func doSomething<E: RawRepresentable>(e: E) where E.RawValue == Int {
print(e.rawValue)
}
}
While you can place enums into a generic type without contraints (<T>), it's not possible to create constraints for all enums or all structs. All the constraints are based on interfaces (subclassing, protocols). Unfortunately, there is nothing in common between two random structs or two random enums.
Structs and enums can't inherit from other structs/enums so the only constraints for enums must be based on protocols.
protocol EnumProtocol {
func method()
}
enum TestEnum : Int, EnumProtocol {
case A
case B
func method() {
}
}
enum TestEnum2 : Int, EnumProtocol {
case C
func method() {
}
}
class EnumGeneric <T : EnumProtocol> {
func method(a: T) {
a.method()
}
}
let test = EnumGeneric<TestEnum>()
test.method(TestEnum.A)
Also note that all enums "inheriting" from a primitive type like Int conform to RawRepresentable, so you could
class EnumGeneric <T : RawRepresentable> {
func method(a: T) {
println("\(a.toRaw())");
}
}
but that won't work for enums declared as enum TestEnum {
AFAIK, Swift does not support type constraint to be specified with enums.
Cited from Swift Manual
Type Constraint Syntax
You write type constraints by placing a single class or protocol
constraint after a type parameter’s name, separated by a colon, as
part of the type parameter list. The basic syntax for type constraints
on a generic function is shown below (although the syntax is the same
for generic types):
Strictly limited to a class or protocol unless there's some hidden features which is not mentioned in manual. As far as I tested, struct or enum are all prohibited by the compiler.
enum Test1 : Int
{
case AAA = 0
}
func test1f<T:Test1>(a: Test1) {} // error: Inheritance from non-protocol, non-class type 'Test1'
struct Test2
{
var aaa:Int = 0
}
func test2f<T:Test2>(a: Test2) {} // error: Inheritance from non-protocol, non-class type 'Test1'
class Test3
{
}
func test3f<T:Test3>(a: Test3) {} // OK