I am working with go, specifically QT bindings. However, I do not understand the use of leading underscores in the struct below. I am aware of the use of underscores in general but not this specific example.
type CustomLabel struct {
core.QObject
_ func() `constructor:"init"`
_ string `property:"text"`
}
Does it relate to the struct tags?
Those are called blank-fields because the blank identifier is used as the field name.
They cannot be referred to (just like any variable that has the blank identifier as its name) but they take part in the struct's memory layout. Usually and practically they are used as padding, to align subsequent fields to byte-positions (or memory-positions) that match layout of the data coming from (or going to) another system. The gain is that so these struct values (or rather their memory space) can be dumped or read simply and efficiently in one step.
#mkopriva's answer details what the specific use case from the question is for.
A word of warning: these blank fields as "type-annotations" should be used sparingly, as they add unnecessary overhead to all (!) values of such struct. These fields cannot be referred to, but they still require memory. If you add a blank field whose size is 8 bytes (e.g. int64), if you create a million elements, those 8 bytes will count a million times. As such, this is a "flawed" use of blank fields: the intention is to add meta info to the type itself (not to its instances), yet the cost is that all elements will require increased memory.
You might say then to use a type whose size is 0, such as struct{}. It's better, as if used in the right position (e.g. being the first field, for reasoning see Struct has different size if the field order is different and also Why position of `[0]byte` in the struct matters?), they won't change the struct's size. Still, code that use reflection to iterate over the struct's fields will still have to loop over these too, so it makes such code less efficient (typically all marshaling / unmarshaling process). Also, since now we can't use an arbitrary type, we lose the advantage of carrying a type information.
This last statement (about when using struct{} we lose the carried type information) can be circumvented. struct{} is not the only type with 0 size, all arrays with 0 length also have zero size (regardless of the actual element type). So we can retain the type information by using a 0-sized array of the type we'd like to incorporate, such as:
type CustomLabel struct {
_ [0]func() `constructor:"init"`
_ [0]string `property:"text"`
}
Now this CustomLabel type looks much better performance-wise as the type in question: its size is still 0. And it is still possible to access the array's element type using Type.Elem() like in this example:
type CustomLabel struct {
_ [0]func() `constructor:"init"`
_ [0]string `property:"text"`
}
func main() {
f := reflect.ValueOf(CustomLabel{}).Type().Field(0)
fmt.Println(f.Tag)
fmt.Println(f.Type)
fmt.Println(f.Type.Elem())
}
Output (try it on the Go Playground):
constructor:"init"
[0]func()
func()
For an overview of struct tags, read related question: What are the use(s) for tags in Go?
You can think of it as meta info of the type, it's not accessible through an instance of that type but can be accessed using reflect or go/ast. This gives the interested package/program some directives as to what to do with that type. For example based on those tags it could generate code using go:generate.
Considering that one of the tags says constructor:"init" and the field's type is func() it's highly probable that this is used with go:generate to generate an constructor function or initializer method named init for the type CustomLabel.
Here's an example of using reflect to get the "meta" info (although as I've already mentioned, the specific qt example is probably meant to be handled by go:generate).
type CustomLabel struct {
_ func() `constructor:"init"`
_ string `property:"text"`
}
fmt.Println(reflect.ValueOf(CustomLabel{}).Type().Field(0).Tag)
// constructor:"init"
fmt.Println(reflect.ValueOf(CustomLabel{}).Type().Field(0).Type)
// func()
https://play.golang.org/p/47yWG4U0uit
Related
I want to be able to extract the FIELD names (not the values) of a struct as strings, put them in a slice of strings and then use the names to print in a menu in Raylib (a graphics library for Go) elsewhere in a program. That way if I change the fields in the struct the menu will update automatically without having to go back and manually edit it. So, if you take a look at the struct below, I want to extract the names MOVING, SOLID, OUTLINE etc. not the boolean value. Is there a way to do this?
type genatt struc {
moving, solid, outline, gradient, rotating bool
}
You may use reflection (reflect package) to do this. Acquire the reflect.Type descriptor of the struct value, and use Type.Field() to access the fields.
For example:
t := reflect.TypeOf(genatt{})
names := make([]string, t.NumField())
for i := range names {
names[i] = t.Field(i).Name
}
fmt.Println(names)
This will output (try it on the Go Playground):
[moving solid outline gradient rotating]
See related questions:
How to get all Fields names in golang proto generated complex structs
How to sort struct fields in alphabetical order
What are the use(s) for tags in Go?
I am writing a collector that collects metrics and stores in structs that looks something like this:
type Metric struct {
Name string
Data []float64
}
However for some metrics, it does not make sense to use float64, since their values are unsigned integers. Any idea how I could use different numeric types for the Data field?
I could use Data []interface{}, but then I won't be able to use indexing on the array elements.
(For clarity: I don't need different types in one slice, like a list in Python: my slice has to be strongly typed, but I want to be able to change the type of the slice.)
For a full solution to this, you'll have to wait until generics lands in Go (potentially in 1.18): https://blog.golang.org/generics-proposal
With generics, you'd be able to have a generic Metric type that can either hold float64 or unsigned, and you could instantiate each of them separately.
E.g. (generics-enabled playgorund):
type Metric[T any] struct {
Name string
Data []T
}
func main() {
mf := Metric[float64]{"foo", []float64{12.24, 1.1, 2.22}}
mu := Metric[uint32]{"bar", []uint32{42, 2}}
fmt.Println(mf)
fmt.Println(mu)
}
Note that [T any] means that the type held in Data is unconstrained. You can constrain it to types with certain characteristics, or to a hardcoded list like float64, uint32 if you prefer.
In the meanwhile, there are some options:
float64 can represent a lot of integers; at least all 32-bit ones (see Representing integers in doubles)
You can use Data []interface{}, but it's rather wasteful. There should be no problem indexing into this slice, but you'll have to have type asserts whenever you work with it. It's costly both memory-wise and runtime performance-wise; something that can really matter for metrics.
You can have two versions of Metric, with code duplication (and use code generation to help, if needed).
This question already has answers here:
Accessing struct fields inside a map value (without copying)
(2 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
New to Go. Encountered this error and have had no luck finding the cause or the rationale for it:
If I create a struct, I can obviously assign and re-assign the values no problem:
type Person struct {
name string
age int
}
func main() {
x := Person{"Andy Capp", 98}
x.age = 99
fmt.Printf("age: %d\n", x.age)
}
but if the struct is one value in a map:
type Person struct {
name string
age int
}
type People map[string]Person
func main() {
p := make(People)
p["HM"] = Person{"Hank McNamara", 39}
p["HM"].age = p["HM"].age + 1
fmt.Printf("age: %d\n", p["HM"].age)
}
I get cannot assign to p["HM"].age. That's it, no other info. http://play.golang.org/p/VRlSItd4eP
I found a way around this - creating an incrementAge func on Person, which can be called and the result assigned to the map key, eg p["HM"] = p["HM"].incrementAge().
But, my question is, what is the reason for this "cannot assign" error, and why shouldn't I be allowed to assign the struct value directly?
p["HM"] isn't quite a regular addressable value: hashmaps can grow at runtime, and then their values get moved around in memory, and the old locations become outdated. If values in maps were treated as regular addressable values, those internals of the map implementation would get exposed.
So, instead, p["HM"] is a slightly different thing called a "map index expression" in the spec; if you search the spec for the phrase "index expression" you'll see you can do certain things with them, like read them, assign to them, and use them in increment/decrement expressions (for numeric types). But you can't do everything. They could have chosen to implement more special cases than they did, but I'm guessing they didn't just to keep things simple.
Your approach seems good here--you change it to a regular assignment, one of the specifically-allowed operations. Another approach (maybe good for larger structs you want to avoid copying around?) is to make the map value a regular old pointer that you can modify the underlying object through:
package main
import "fmt"
type Person struct {
name string
age int
}
type People map[string]*Person
func main() {
p := make(People)
p["HM"] = &Person{"Hank McNamara", 39}
p["HM"].age += 1
fmt.Printf("age: %d\n", p["HM"].age)
}
The left side of the assignment must b "addressable".
https://golang.org/ref/spec#Assignments
Each left-hand side operand must be addressable, a map index expression, or (for = assignments only) the blank identifier.
and https://golang.org/ref/spec#Address_operators
The operand must be addressable, that is, either a variable, pointer indirection, or slice indexing operation; or a field selector of an addressable struct operand; or an array indexing operation of an addressable array.
as #twotwotwo's comment, p["HM"] is not addressable.
but, there is no such definition show what is "addressable struct operand" in the spec. I think they should add some description for it.
Originally I figured I'd only use pointers for optional struct fields which could potentionally be nil in cases which it was initially built for.
As my code evolved I was writing different layers upon my models - for xml and json (un)marshalling. In these cases even the fields I thought would always be a requirement (Id, Name etc) actually turned out to be optional for some layers.
In the end I had put a * in front of all the fields including so int became *int, string became *string etc.
Now I'm wondering if I had been better of not generalising my code so much? I could have duplicated the code instead, which I find rather ugly - but perhaps more efficient than using pointers for all struct fields?
So my question is whether this is turning into an anti-pattern and just a bad habbit, or if this added flexibility does not come at a cost from a performance point of view?
Eg. can you come up with good arguments for sticking with option A:
type MyStruct struct {
Id int
Name string
ParentId *int
// etc.. only pointers where NULL columns in db might occur
}
over this option B:
type MyStruct struct {
Id *int
Name *string
ParentId *int
// etc... using *pointers for all fields
}
Would the best practice way of modelling your structs be from a purely database/column perspective, or eg if you had:
func (m *MyStruct) UnmarshalXML(d *xml.Decoder, start xml.StartElement) error {
var v struct {
XMLName xml.Name `xml:"myStruct"`
Name string `xml:"name"`
Parent string `xml:"parent"`
Children []*MyStruct `xml:"children,omitempty"`
}
err := d.DecodeElement(&v, &start)
if err != nil {
return err
}
m.Id = nil // adding to db from xml, there's initially no Id, until after the insert
m.Name = v.Name // a parent might be referenced by name or alias
m.ParentId = nil // not by parentId, since it's not created yet, but maybe by nesting elements like you see above in the V struct (Children []*ContentType)
// etc..
return nil
}
This example could be part of the scenario where you want to add elements from XML to the database. Here ids would generally not make sense, so instead we use nesting and references on name or other aliases. An Id for the structs would not be set until we got the id, after the INSERT query. Then using that ID we could traverse down the hierachy to the child elements etc.
This would allow us to have just 1 MyStruct, and use eg. different POST http request handler functions, depending if the call came from form input, or xml importing where a nested hierarchy and different relations might need come different handling.
In the end I guess what I'm asking is:
Would you be better off separating struct models for db, xml- and json operations (or whatever scenario that you can think of), than using struct field pointers all the way, so we can reuse the model for different, yet related stuff?
Apart from possible performance (more pointers = more things for the GC to scan), safety (nil pointer dereference), convenience (s.a = 2 vs s.a = new(int); *s.a = 42), and memory penalties (a bool is one byte, a *bool is four to eight), there is one thing that really bothers me in the all-pointer approach. It violates the Single responsibility principle.
Is the MyStruct you get from XML or DB same as MyStruct? What if the DB schema will change? What if the XML changes format? What if you'll also need to unmarshal it into JSON, but in a slightly different manner? And what if you need to support all that (and in multiple versions!) at the same time?
A lot of pain comes to you when you try to make one thing do many things. Is having one do-it-all type instead of N specialised types really worth it?
Whats the correct way in go to distinguish between when a value in a struct was never set, or is just empty, for example, given the following:
type Organisation struct {
Category string
Code string
Name string
}
I need to know (for example) if the category was never set, or was saved as blank by the user, should I be doing this:
type Organisation struct {
Category *string
Code *string
Name *string
}
I also need to ensure I correctly persist either null or an empty string to the database
I'm still learning GO so it is entirely possible my question needs more info.
The zero value for a string is an empty string, and you can't distinguish between the two.
If you are using the database/sql package, and need to distinguish between NULL and empty strings, consider using the sql.NullString type. It is a simple struct that keeps track of the NULL state:
type NullString struct {
String string
Valid bool // Valid is true if String is not NULL
}
You can scan into this type and use it as a query parameter, and the package will handle the NULL state for you.
Google's protocol buffers (https://code.google.com/p/goprotobuf/) use pointers to describe optional fields.
The generated objects provide GetFoo methods which take the pain away from testing for nil (a.GetFoo() returns an empty string if a.Foo is nil, otherwise it returns *a.Foo).
It introduces a nuisance when you want to write literal structs (in tests, for example), because &"something" is not valid syntax to generate a pointer to a string, so you need a helper function (see, for example, the source code of the protocol buffer library for proto.String).
// String is a helper routine that allocates a new string value
// to store v and returns a pointer to it.
func String(v string) *string {
return &v
}
Overall, using pointers to represent optional fields is not without drawbacks, but it's certainly a viable design choice.
The standard database/sql package provides a NullString struct (members are just String string and Valid bool). To take care of some of the repetitive work of persistence, you could look at an object-relational manager like gorp.
I looked into whether there was some way to distinguish two kinds of empty string just out of curiosity, and couldn't find one. With []bytes, []byte{} == []byte(nil) currently returns false, but I'm not sure if the spec guarantees that to always remain true. In any case, it seems like the most practical thing to do is to go with the flow and use NullString.