I want to create a utility-function that is able to merge two given slices, determining equality by a given function.
type IsEqualTest func(interface{}, interface{}) bool
func ArrayMerge(one *[]interface{}, another *[]interface{}, comp IsEqualTest) *[]interface{} {
merged := *one
for _, element := range *another {
if !ArrayContains(one, &element, comp) {
merged = append(merged, element)
}
}
return &merged
}
func ArrayContains(container *[]interface{}, eventualContent *interface{}, comp IsEqualTest) bool {
for _, element := range *container {
if comp(element, eventualContent) {
return true
}
}
return false
}
// please don't mind the algorithmic flaws
However, as go does treat the []interface{} type as non-compatible to slices of anything (and it lacks generics), I would need to iterate over both operands, converting the type of the contained elements when calling, which is not what anyone could want.
What is the Go style of dealing with collections containing any type?
First: without generics, there is no idiomatic way of doing this.
Second: your thinking might be too influenced by other languages. You already got a function to compare, why not take it a bit further?
What I suggest below is not efficient, and it should not be done. However, if you really want to do it:
It looks like this is not a set union, but add the elements of the second slice to the first if they don't already exist in the first slice. To do that, you can pass two functions:
func merge(len1,len2 int, eq func(int,int)bool, write func(int)) {
for i2:=0;i2<len2;i2++ {
found:=false
for i1:=0;i1<len1;i1++ {
if eq(i1,i2) {
found=true
break
}
}
if !found {
write(i2)
}
}
Above, eq(i,j) returns true if slice1[i]==slice2[j], and write(j) does append(result,slice2[j]).
Related
Cannot Range Over List Type Interface {} In Function Using Go.
for me is important then i execute for in a function.
How can fix?
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type MyBoxItem struct {
Name string
}
type MyBox struct {
Items []MyBoxItem
}
func (box *MyBox) AddItem(item MyBoxItem) []MyBoxItem {
box.Items = append(box.Items, item)
return box.Items
}
func PrintCustomArray(list interface{}) interface{} {
//items := reflect.ValueOf(list)
for _, v := range list {
fmt.Println(v.Key,v.Value)
}
return 0
}
func main() {
items := []MyBoxItem{}
item := MyBoxItem{Name: "Test Item 1"}
box := MyBox{items}
box.AddItem(item)
fmt.Println((box.Items))
PrintCustomArray(box.Items)
}
https://play.golang.org/p/ZcIBLMliq3
Error : cannot range over list (type interface {})
How can fix?
Note
The answer below describes, in broad strokes, 2 possible approaches: using interfaces, and using specific types. The approach focusing on interfaces is mentioned for completeness sake. IMHO, the case you've presented is not a viable use-case for interfaces.
Below, you'll find a link to a playground example that uses both techniques. It should be apparent to anyone that the interface approach is too cumbersome if for this specific case.
Quite apart from the fact that you don't really seem to be too familiar with how loops work in go (v.Key and v.Value are non-existent fields for example), I'll attempt to answer your question.
You are passing a list to your function, sure enough, but it's being handled as an interface{} type. That means your function accepts, essentially, any value as an argument. You can't simply iterate over them.
What you can do is use type assertions to convert the argument to a slice, then another assertion to use it as another, specific interface:
type Item interface{
key() string
val() string
}
func (i MyBoxItem) key() string {
return i.Key
}
func (i MyBoxItem) val() string {
return i.Value
}
func PrintCustomArray(list interface{}) error {
listSlice, ok := list.([]interface{})
if !ok {
return fmt.Errorf("Argument is not a slice")
}
for _, v := range listSlice {
item, ok := v.(Item)
if !ok {
return fmt.Errorf("element in slice does not implement the Item interface")
}
fmt.Println(item.key(), item.val())
}
return nil
}
But let's be honest, a function like this only works if a slice is passed as an argument. So having that first type assertion in there makes no sense whatsoever. At the very least, changing the function to something like this makes a lot more sense:
func PrintCustomArray(list []interface{})
Then, because we're not expecting an array as such, but rather a slice, the name should be changed to PrintCustomSlice.
Lastly, because we're using the same type assertion for every value in the slice, we might as well change the function even more:
// at this point, we'll always return 0, which is pointless
// just don't return anything
func PrintCustomSlice(list []Item) {
for _, v := range list {
fmt.Println(v.key(), v.val())
}
}
The advantages of a function like this is that it can still handle multiple types (all you have to do is implement the interface). You don't need any kind of expensive operations (like reflection), or type assertions.
Type assertions are very useful, but in a case like this, they merely serve to hide problems that would otherwise have resulted in a compile-time error. Go's interface{} type is a very useful thing, but you seem to be using it to get around the type system. If that's what you want to achieve, why use a typed language in the first place?
Some closing thoughts/remarks: If your function is only going to be used to iterate over specific "thing", you don't need the interfaces at all, simply specify the type you're expecting to be passed to the function in the first place. In this case that would be:
func PrintCustomSlice(list []MyBoxItem) {
for _, v := range list {
fmt.Println(v.Key, v.Value)
}
}
Another thing that I've noticed is that you seem to be exporting everything (all functions, types, and fields start with a capital letter). This, in go, is considered bad form. Only export what needs to be public. In the main package, that usually means you're hardly export anything.
Lastly, as I mentioned at the start: you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the basics just yet. I'd strongly recommend you go through the interactive tour. It covers the basics nicely, but shows you the features of the language at a decent pace. It doesn't take long, and is well worth taking a couple of hours to complete
Playground demo
It's possible to implement PrintCustomArray using the reflect package, but most experienced Go programmers will write a simple for loop:
for _, i := range box.Items {
fmt.Println("Name:", i.Name)
}
https://play.golang.org/p/RhubiCpry0
You can also encapsulate it in a function:
func PrintCustomArray(items []MyBoxItem) {
for _, i := range items {
fmt.Println("Name:", i.Name)
}
}
https://play.golang.org/p/c4EPQIx1AH
Here since you are returning box.Items from AddItem(), Items is of the type []MyBoxItem , so list should be of type []MyBoxItem .Moreover you are returning 0 in PrintCustomArray and the return type you have set is {}interface.
func PrintCustomArray(list []MyBoxItem) {
//items := reflect.ValueOf(list)
for i, v := range list {
fmt.Println(i, v)
}
//return 0
}
Again, MyBoxItem struct has only one variable named Name so v.key v.value won't make any sense.
This is what the proper code should look like https://play.golang.org/p/ILoUwEWv6Y .
You need to clear your understanding about interfaces in go. This might help https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#interfaces_and_types .
I have problem with resolve whether object which was pass as interface to function hasn't initializated fields, like object which was defined as just someObject{} is a empty, because all fields, has value 0, or nil
Problem becomes more complicated if I pass diffrent objects, because each object have diffrent type field value so on this moment I don't find universal way to this.
Example
func main(){
oo := objectOne{}
ot := objectTwo{}
oth := objectThree{"blah" , "balbal" , "blaal"}
resolveIsNotIntialized(oo)
resolveIsNotIntialized(ot)
resolveIsNotIntialized(oth)
}
func resolveIsNotIntialized(v interface{}) bool{
// and below, how resolve that oo and ot is empty
if (v.SomeMethodWhichCanResolveThatAllFiledIsNotIntialized){
return true
}
return false
}
I want to avoid usage switch statement like below, and additional function for each object, ofcorse if is possible.
func unsmartMethod(v interface{}) bool{
switch v.(type){
case objectOne:
if v == (objectOne{}) {
return true
}
// and next object, and next....
}
return false
}
As Franck notes, this is likely a bad idea. Every value is always initialized in Go. Your actual question is whether the type equals its Zero value. Generally the Zero value should be designed such that it is valid. The better approach would generally be to create an interface along the lines of:
type ZeroChecker interface {
IsZero() bool
}
And then attach that to whatever types you want to check. (Or possibly better: create an IsValid() test instead rather than doing your logic backwards.)
That said, it is possible to check this with reflection, by comparing it to its Zero.
func resolveIsNotIntialized(v interface{}) bool {
t := reflect.TypeOf(v)
z := reflect.Zero(t).Interface()
return reflect.DeepEqual(v, z)
}
(You might be able to get away with return v == z here; I haven't thought through all the possible cases.)
I don’t think there is a good reason (in idiomatic Go) to do what you are trying to do. You need to design your structs so that default values (nil, empty string, 0, false, etc.) are valid and represent the initial state of your object. Look at the source of the standard library, there are lots of examples of that.
What you are suggesting is easily doable via Reflection but it will be slow and clunky.
You could narrow the type which your function takes as an argement a little, not take an interface{} but accept one that allows you to check for non-zero values, say type intercae{nonZero() bool} as in the example code below. This will not tell you explicitly that it hasn't been set to the zero value, but that it is not zero.
type nonZeroed interface {
nonZero() bool
}
type zero struct {
hasVals bool
}
func (z zero) nonZero() bool {
return z.hasVals
}
type nonZero struct {
val int
}
func (nz nonZero) nonZero() bool {
return nz.val != 0
}
type alsoZero float64
func (az alsoZero) nonZero() bool {
return az != 0.0
}
func main() {
z := zero{}
nz := nonZero{
val: 1,
}
var az alsoZero
fmt.Println("z has values:", initialized(z))
fmt.Println("nz has values:", initialized(nz))
fmt.Println("az has values:", initialized(az))
}
func initialized(a nonZeroed) bool {
return a.nonZero()
}
Obviously as the type get more complex additional verification would need to be made that it was "nonZero". This type of pattern could be used to check any sort condition.
I've got a handful of interfaces, and n number of structs that arbitrarily implement these interfaces. I'd like to keep an array of types and be able to run a loop over them to see which ones are implemented. Is it possible to store a type like this? I spent a little bit of time with the reflect package, but couldn't really find what I was looking for, I understand if maybe this isn't best practice. Trying to do something similar to this.. without a giant type switch, fallthrough, or if.. if... if.
type InterOne interface {
InterOneMethod() string
}
var interfaceMap = map[string]type {
"One": InterOne,
...
}
func doesHandle(any interface{}) []string {
var handles []string
for k, v := range interfaceMap {
if _, ok := any.(v); ok {
handles = append(handles, k)
}
}
return handles
}
EDIT: The answer marked as correct is technically right. I found that due to the comment about the method calling & the overuse of reflection, that this approach was a bad idea. Instead I went with a type switch to check for a single interface because fallthrough is not supported on type switch, and a large if.. if.. if.. with type assertions to be able to make the appropriate calls.
You can use reflect, notice that to get the type of an interface the only way is to use reflect.TypeOf((*INTERFACE)(nil)).Elem(), here's a working example:
var interfaceMap = map[string]reflect.Type{
"One": reflect.TypeOf((*InterOne)(nil)).Elem(),
....
}
func doesHandle(any interface{}) []string {
t := reflect.TypeOf(any)
var handles []string
for k, v := range interfaceMap {
if t.Implements(v) {
handles = append(handles, k)
}
}
return handles
}
playground
Is there a way to write a generic array/slice deduplication in go, for []int we can have something like (from http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Remove_duplicate_elements#Go ):
func uniq(list []int) []int {
unique_set := make(map[int] bool, len(list))
for _, x := range list {
unique_set[x] = true
}
result := make([]int, len(unique_set))
i := 0
for x := range unique_set {
result[i] = x
i++
}
return result
}
But is there a way to extend it to support any array? with a signature like:
func deduplicate(a []interface{}) []interface{}
I know that you can write that function with that signature, but then you can't actually use it on []int, you need to create a []interface{} put everything from the []int into it, pass it to the function then get it back and put it into a []interface{} and go through this new array and put everything in a new []int.
My question is, is there a better way to do this?
While VonC's answer probably does the closest to what you really want, the only real way to do it in native Go without gen is to define an interface
type IDList interface {
// Returns the id of the element at i
ID(i int) int
// Returns the element
// with the given id
GetByID(id int) interface{}
Len() int
// Adds the element to the list
Insert(interface{})
}
// Puts the deduplicated list in dst
func Deduplicate(dst, list IDList) {
intList := make([]int, list.Len())
for i := range intList {
intList[i] = list.ID(i)
}
uniques := uniq(intList)
for _,el := range uniques {
dst.Insert(list.GetByID(el))
}
}
Where uniq is the function from your OP.
This is just one possible example, and there are probably much better ones, but in general mapping each element to a unique "==able" ID and either constructing a new list or culling based on the deduplication of the IDs is probably the most intuitive way.
An alternate solution is to take in an []IDer where the IDer interface is just ID() int. However, that means that user code has to create the []IDer list and copy all the elements into that list, which is a bit ugly. It's cleaner for the user to wrap the list as an ID list rather than copy, but it's a similar amount of work either way.
The only way I have seen that implemented in Go is with the clipperhouse/gen project,
gen is an attempt to bring some generics-like functionality to Go, with some inspiration from C#’s Linq and JavaScript’s underscore libraries
See this test:
// Distinct returns a new Thing1s slice whose elements are unique. See: http://clipperhouse.github.io/gen/#Distinct
func (rcv Thing1s) Distinct() (result Thing1s) {
appended := make(map[Thing1]bool)
for _, v := range rcv {
if !appended[v] {
result = append(result, v)
appended[v] = true
}
}
return result
}
But, as explained in clipperhouse.github.io/gen/:
gen generates code for your types, at development time, using the command line.
gen is not an import; the generated source becomes part of your project and takes no external dependencies.
You could do something close to this via an interface. Define an interface, say "DeDupable" requiring a func, say, UniqId() []byte, which you could then use to do the removing of dups. and your uniq func would take a []DeDupable and work on it
This is a variant of the venerable "why is my map printing out of order" question.
I have a (fairly large) number of maps of the form map[MyKey]MyValue, where MyKey and MyValue are (usually) structs. I've got "less" functions for all the key types.
I need to iterate over the maps in order. (Specifically, the order defined by the less function on that type.) Right now, my code looks like this:
type PairKeyValue struct {
MyKey
MyValue
}
type PairKeyValueSlice []Pair
func (ps PairKeyValueSlice) Len() int {
return len(ps)
}
func (ps PairKeyValueSlice) Swap(i,j int) {
ps[i], ps[j] = ps[j], ps[i]
}
func (ps PairKeyValueSlice) Less(i,j int) {
return LessKey(ps[i].MyKey, ps[j].MyKey)
}
func NewPairKeyValueSlice(m map[MyKey]MyValue) (ps PairKeyValueSlice) {
ps = make(PairKeyValueSlice, len(m))
i := 0
for k,v := range m {
ps[i] = PairKeyValue{k,v}
i++
}
sort.Sort(ps)
}
And then, any time I want an in-order iteration, it looks like:
var m map[MyKey]MyValue
m = GetMapFromSomewhereUseful()
for _, kv := range NewPairKeyValueSlice(m) {
key := kv.MyKey
value := kv.MyValue
DoUsefulWork(key, value)
}
And this appears to largely work. The problem is that it is terribly verbose. Particularly since the problem at hand really has very little to do with implmenting ordered maps and is really about the useful work in the loop.
Also, I have several different keys and value types. So, every time I want to iterate over a map in order, I copy/paste all that code and do find/replace MyKey with the new key and MyValue with the new value. Copy/paste on that magnitude is... "smelly". It has already become a hassle, since I've already made a few errors that I had to fix several times.
This technique also has the downside that it requires making a full copy of all the keys and values. That is undesirable, but I don't see a way around it. (I could reduce it to just the keys, but it doesn't change the primary nature of the problem.)
This question is attempting the same thing with strings. This question does it with strings and ints. This question implies that you need to use reflection and will have to have a switch statement that switches on every possible type, including all user-defined types.
But with the people who are puzzled that maps don't iterate deterministically, it seems that there has got to be a better solution to this problem. I'm from an OO background, so I'm probably missing something fundamental.
So, is there a reasonable way to iterate over a map in order?
Update: Editing the question to have more information about the source, in case there's a better solution than this.
I have a lot of things I need to group for output. Each grouping level is in a structure that looks like these:
type ObjTypeTree struct {
Children map[Type]*ObjKindTree
TotalCount uint
}
type ObjKindTree struct {
Children map[Kind]*ObjAreaTree
TotalCount uint
}
type ObjAreaTree struct {
Children map[Area]*ObjAreaTree
TotalCount uint
Objs []*Obj
}
Then, I'd iterate over the children in the ObjTypeTree to print the Type groupings. For each of those, I iterate over the ObjKindTree to print the Kind groupings. The iterations are done with methods on the types, and each kind of type needs a little different way of printing its grouping level. Groups need to be printed in order, which causes the problem.
Don't use a map if key collating is required. Use a B-tree or any other/similar ordered container.
I second jnml's answer. But if you want something shorter than you have and are willing to give up compile time type safety, then my library might work for you. (It's built on top of reflect.) Here's a full working example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"github.com/BurntSushi/ty/fun"
)
type OrderedKey struct {
L1 rune
L2 rune
}
func (k1 OrderedKey) Less(k2 OrderedKey) bool {
return k1.L1 < k2.L1 || (k1.L1 == k2.L1 && k1.L2 < k2.L2)
}
func main() {
m := map[OrderedKey]string{
OrderedKey{'b', 'a'}: "second",
OrderedKey{'x', 'y'}: "fourth",
OrderedKey{'x', 'x'}: "third",
OrderedKey{'a', 'b'}: "first",
OrderedKey{'x', 'z'}: "fifth",
}
for k, v := range m {
fmt.Printf("(%c, %c): %s\n", k.L1, k.L2, v)
}
fmt.Println("-----------------------------")
keys := fun.QuickSort(OrderedKey.Less, fun.Keys(m)).([]OrderedKey)
for _, k := range keys {
v := m[k]
fmt.Printf("(%c, %c): %s\n", k.L1, k.L2, v)
}
}
Note that such a method will be slower, so if you need performance, this is not a good choice.