I've been trying to use the Heap package in Go and I am not sure on how to initialize it.
package main
import "container/heap"
type PriorityMessage struct {
Priority int
Message string
}
func priorityQueue() {
//WOULD THIS not initialize the heap?
h := heap.Init(h PriorityMessage)
}
I've been trying to find examples online of how other's initialized their heaps and all of them seem to create their own versions of the Go heap package everytime. Would calling the heap.Init(h Interface) function from the heap package not work?
There is the heap.Interface what you should implement first.
type Interface interface {
sort.Interface
Push(x interface{}) // add x as element Len()
Pop() interface{} // remove and return element Len() - 1.
}
This means you should have the necessary methods for your PriorityMessage struct. After you pass the instance of the struct into the heap.Init(&pm).
You can find details in the godoc as linked in the comments.
Just to clarify the confusion. Go is a strongly typed language with lack of generics. So the heap package designed on the way that it's type independent. You can create your own implementation for all of the types what you want to implement. Any type implements the heap.Interface can be used by the heap package.
//https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.16.6:src/container/heap/example_intheap_test.go
// This example demonstrates an integer heap built using the heap interface.
//package heap_test
import (
"container/heap"
"fmt"
)
// An IntHeap is a min-heap of ints.
type IntHeap []int
func (h IntHeap) Len() int { return len(h) }
func (h IntHeap) Less(i, j int) bool { return h[i] < h[j] }
func (h IntHeap) Swap(i, j int) { h[i], h[j] = h[j], h[i] }
func (h *IntHeap) Push(x interface{}) {
// Push and Pop use pointer receivers because they modify the slice's length,
// not just its contents.
*h = append(*h, x.(int))
}
func (h *IntHeap) Pop() interface{} {
old := *h
n := len(old)
x := old[n-1]
*h = old[0 : n-1]
return x
}
// This example inserts several ints into an IntHeap, checks the minimum,
// and removes them in order of priority.
func Example_intHeap() {
h := &IntHeap{2, 1, 5}
heap.Init(h)
heap.Push(h, 3)
fmt.Printf("minimum: %d\n", (*h)[0])
for h.Len() > 0 {
fmt.Printf("%d ", heap.Pop(h))
}
// Output:
// minimum: 1
// 1 2 3 5
}
Related
I wrote the below code that is working fine:
package main
import "fmt"
type hashMap interface {
}
type hashMap struct {
m map[hashable]hashable
k []hashable
}
type hashMap struct {
m map[T]T
k []T
}
// Methods required to enable sort: Len, Less, Swap > start
func (h *hashMap) Len() int {
return len(h.m)
}
func (h *hashMap) Less(i, j int) bool {
switch v := h.m[h.k[i]].(type) {
case int:
return v > h.m[h.k[j]].(int)
case float32:
return v > h.m[h.k[j]].(float32)
case float64:
return v > h.m[h.k[j]].(float64)
case string:
return v > h.m[h.k[j]].(string)
default:
return false
}
}
func (h *hashMap) Swap(i, j int) {
h.k[i], h.k[j] = h.k[j], h.k[i]
}
// Methods required to enable sort: Len, Less, Swap > end
// Build Ordered Map methods
func (h *hashMap) from(m map[T]T) hashMap {
h.m = m
h.k = make([]T, 0, len(m))
for key := range m {
h.k = append(h.k, key)
}
return *h
}
func main() {
inv := new(hashMap).from(map[T]T{"first:": 1, "second": 2})
fmt.Printf("%v", inv)
}
I would like to replace the empty interface type T interface {} using something like:
type T interface {
Len() int
Less() bool
Swap()
}
How can I do it?
You cannot do that in general.
Your hashMap contains a map[T]T. From https://golang.org/ref/spec#Map_types :
The comparison operators == and != must be fully defined for operands of the key type; thus the key type must not be a function, map, or slice. If the key type is an interface type, these comparison operators must be defined for the dynamic key values; failure will cause a run-time panic.
(emphasis added).
So this works only if your implementation of T has == and != defined. As these operators are not userdefinable only the builtin/predeclared types which define them can be used. So the only types you can use as Ts are the one you can use as normal map keys anyway. So you gain nothing.
(But honestly I have no idea what your interface T is good for, especially given that you cannot use that interface for sorting; or what your code is trying to do. This looks like a XY problem.)
Why do we have the methods declared outside the type definition of the struct? E.g.:
type antenna struct {
name string
length float32
girth float32
bloodtype string
}
func (p *antenna) extend() {
p.length += 10
}
It seems to me that the method could be part of the struct? (Let's ignore for now that structs are supposed to be value types)
type antenna struct {
name string
length float32
girth float32
bloodtype string
func extend() {
length += 10
}
}
This would be more similar to traditional OOP. I didn't find any good explanations of why it is done the way it is besides "structs are value-types and classes are reference-types". I know the difference, but it's not a satisfactory answer to me. In any way the method has to be called like this:
var x = antenna()
x.extend()
So what's the point of separating the the struct and methods? Having them visually grouped together in the code - as in typical OOP languages - seems useful to me?
TLR: Code reuse, and Consistency.
1 - This enables to reuse methods:
This is the key design principle of the interface type in Go - let me make it more clear with an example: Consider you need to sort an slice of int (try it here):
a := []int{1, 3, 2, 5, 4}
sort.Ints(a) // sort.Sort(sort.IntSlice(a))
fmt.Println(a) // [1 2 3 4 5]
You simply call sort.Ints(a) which then calls Sort(IntSlice(a)) inside the standard library:
type IntSlice []int
func (x IntSlice) Len() int { return len(x) }
func (x IntSlice) Less(i, j int) bool { return x[i] < x[j] }
func (x IntSlice) Swap(i, j int) { x[i], x[j] = x[j], x[i] }
sort.IntSlice attaches the 3 methods of sort.Interface: Len, Less, and Swap to the type []int, to call:
// Sort sorts data in ascending order as determined by the Less method.
// It makes one call to data.Len to determine n and O(n*log(n)) calls to
// data.Less and data.Swap. The sort is not guaranteed to be stable.
func Sort(data Interface) {
n := data.Len()
quickSort(data, 0, n, maxDepth(n))
}
So you are able to reuse methods from the standard library, and you don't need to reimplement it again.
2- You may define your own types, See this example - There is no inside here for this named type - so methods must be outside of this type:
package main
import "fmt"
type num int32
func (p *num) inc() {
*p++
}
func main() {
p := num(100)
p.inc()
fmt.Println(p) // 101
}
The above named type num versus this user defined type: By design this makes the Go language consistent for both types:
type Animal struct {
Name string
moves []move.Direction
}
func (p *Animal) Walk(dir move.Direction) {
p.moves = append(p.moves, dir)
}
See also:
In Go is naming the receiver variable 'self' misleading or good practice?
I'm looking at the sort.Reverse code:
type reverse struct {
// This embedded Interface permits Reverse to use the methods of
// another Interface implementation.
Interface
}
// Less returns the opposite of the embedded implementation's Less method.
func (r reverse) Less(i, j int) bool {
return r.Interface.Less(j, i)
}
// Reverse returns the reverse order for data.
func Reverse(data Interface) Interface {
return &reverse{data}
}
As far as I understand reverse implements Interface (and overrides Less) and *reverse does not implement Interface. Why does Reverse return *reverse (which somehow is Interface)?
For your comment:
As far as I understand reverse implements Interface (and overrides
Less)
There is no method overriding in Golang. It is not overriding Less. It is implementing Less of Interface which is an interface type:
type Interface interface {
// Len is the number of elements in the collection.
Len() int
// Less reports whether the element with
// index i should sort before the element with index j.
Less(i, j int) bool
// Swap swaps the elements with indexes i and j.
Swap(i, j int)
}
For the question asked:
Why does Reverse return *reverse (which somehow is Interface)
Because to change the order of the data it should be an address of the reverse struct. That's why it is *reverse. Now you can pass any type implementing Interface interface. And for implementing the Interface you should implement all the methods defined inside Interface.
type IntSlice []int
func (p IntSlice) Len() int { return len(p) }
func (p IntSlice) Less(i, j int) bool { return p[i] < p[j] }
func (p IntSlice) Swap(i, j int) { p[i], p[j] = p[j], p[i] }
In above case you can see that IntSlice implements the Interface. Hence you can pass the Intslice as an argument to Reverse.
As an example you can also implement using Float values as:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sort"
)
func main() {
//s := []int{5, 2, 6, 3, 1, 4} // unsorted
s1 := []float64{5.2, 2.6, .6, .03, 2.1 } // unsorted
sort.Sort(sort.Reverse(sort.Float64Slice(s1)))
fmt.Println(s1)
}
Playground example
I'm puzzled as why this code doesn't work:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sort"
)
type T [2]int
func (t T) Len() int { return len(t) }
func (t T) Swap(i, j int) { t[i], t[j] = t[j], t[i] }
func (t T) Less(i, j int) bool { return t[i] < t[j] }
func main() {
var x = [2]int{1, 0}
fmt.Println(x)
sort.Sort(T(x))
fmt.Println(x)
}
It outputs (incorrectly):
[1 0]
[1 0]
Changing the type of T to slices does the correct thing.
Slices are inherently reference types, meaning the slice header contains a pointer to the backing array, so they can be mutated without a pointer receiver. Arrays not being a reference type, are copied in full when calling your methods.
In order to do this with an array you need to change everything to use pointers, so your code might look something like:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sort"
)
type T [2]int
func (t *T) Len() int { return len(t) }
func (t *T) Swap(i, j int) { t[i], t[j] = t[j], t[i] }
func (t *T) Less(i, j int) bool { return t[i] < t[j] }
func main() {
var x = T([2]int{1, 0})
fmt.Println(x)
sort.Sort(&x)
fmt.Println(x)
}
I didn't find a BitSet package in Go, so I tried to implement it.
I'd like to use a array of uint64 to store the bits.
I need the number of bits to allocate the uint64 array.
With Java, I can define a constructor that takes an integer.
While Go doesn't provide constructor, how can I properly initialize
the BitSet 'object' when user call new()?
Go's standard big.Int can be used as a bit set:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"math/big"
)
func main() {
var bits big.Int
for i := 1000; i < 2000; i++ {
bits.SetBit(&bits, i, 1)
}
for i := 0; i < 10000; i++ {
if bits.Bit(i) != 0 {
fmt.Println(i)
}
}
}
https://play.golang.org/p/xbIK-boouqC
Declare bitSet as a private struct:
type bitSet struct {
len int
array []uint64
}
Expose the interface BitSet:
type BitSet interface {
Has(pos int) bool
Add(pos int) bool
Len() int
}
Also expose a function NewBitSet:
func NewBitSet(len int) BitSet {
return &bitSet{len, make(uint64, (len+7) / 8) }
}
This is a Go way for encapsulation: share an interface, not the implementation.
If you use a []uint64 slice to store your data, then the zero slice could function as the empty BitSet. In fact appending to a nil slice allocates a new array for you, although the Language Specification doesn't appear to guarantee that. With that kind of setup, new(BitSet) would be immediately usable. Example:
bitset.go:
package bitset
const size = 64
type bits uint64
// BitSet is a set of bits that can be set, cleared and queried.
type BitSet []bits
// Set ensures that the given bit is set in the BitSet.
func (s *BitSet) Set(i uint) {
if len(*s) < int(i/size+1) {
r := make([]bits, i/size+1)
copy(r, *s)
*s = r
}
(*s)[i/size] |= 1 << (i % size)
}
// Clear ensures that the given bit is cleared (not set) in the BitSet.
func (s *BitSet) Clear(i uint) {
if len(*s) >= int(i/size+1) {
(*s)[i/size] &^= 1 << (i % size)
}
}
// IsSet returns true if the given bit is set, false if it is cleared.
func (s *BitSet) IsSet(i uint) bool {
return (*s)[i/size]&(1<<(i%size)) != 0
}
bitset_test.go:
package bitset
import "fmt"
func ExampleBitSet() {
s := new(BitSet)
s.Set(13)
s.Set(45)
s.Clear(13)
fmt.Printf("s.IsSet(13) = %t; s.IsSet(45) = %t; s.IsSet(30) = %t\n",
s.IsSet(13), s.IsSet(45), s.IsSet(30))
// Output: s.IsSet(13) = false; s.IsSet(45) = true; s.IsSet(30) = false
}
The short answer is, you can't properly initialize the BitSet object when a client calls new().
The best thing you can do is make it so that your BitSet's zero value is valid. This is what types like list.List, sync.Mutex, and big.Int do. This way you know that it's impossible for a client to get an invalid value.
The next best thing you can do is create a constuctor-like function (named NewBitSet in this case) and expect clients to call it.