When defining a inner function which utilizes the variables of outer scope, should I pass the variables to the inner function as parameters?
In my example, generate and generate2 both give me same result, is there a reason I should choose any one of them?
The code picks key 1 to generate combinations with key 3,4,5,
then picks key 2 to generate combinations with key 3,4,5.
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
func main() {
fmt.Println("Hello, playground")
src := map[int][]string{
1: []string{"1", "11", "111"},
2: []string{"2", "22"},
3: []string{"3"},
4: []string{"4"},
5: []string{"5", "55"},
}
result2 := generate2(src)
fmt.Println(result2)
result := generate(src)
fmt.Println(result)
}
func generate(src map[int][]string) []string {
var combo []string
var add = func(f []string) {
for _, v := range f {
for _, p := range src[3] {
for _, q := range src[4] {
for _, r := range src[5] {
combo = append(combo, v+p+q+r)
}
}
}
}
}
add(src[1])
add(src[2])
return combo
}
func generate2(src map[int][]string) []string {
var combo []string
var add = func(f []string, combo []string, src map[int][]string) []string {
for _, v := range f {
for _, p := range src[3] {
for _, q := range src[4] {
for _, r := range src[5] {
combo = append(combo, v+p+q+r)
}
}
}
}
return combo
}
combo = add(src[1], combo, src)
combo = add(src[2], combo, src)
return combo
}
When defining a inner function which utilizes the variables of outer scope, should I pass the variables to the inner function as parameters?
It depends on what you want to achieve.
What you call "a function inside a function" is actually called "a closure" (and some people call it "lambda").
Closures capture variables from the outer lexical scope, referenced in its body. In Go, this capturing is done "by reference" or "by name" which basically means each time a closure is called it will "see" current values of the variables it closes over, not the values these variables had at the time the closure was created—observe that the program:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
func main() {
i := 42
fn := func() {
fmt.Println(i)
}
fn()
i = 12
fn()
}
would output
42
12
Conversely, when you pass values as arguments to calls to a closure, each call will see exactly the values passed to it.
I hope you now see that what strategy to pick largely depends on what you want.
Conceptually, you may think of a closure as being an instance of an ad-hoc anonymous struct data type, the fields of which are pointers to the variables the closure closes over, and each call to that closure being analogous to calling some (anonymous, sole) method provided by that type (actually, that's what the compiler usually does behind your back to implement a closure).
Such "method" may have arguments, and whether it should have them, and what should go to the type's fields and what should be that method's arguments can be judged using the usual approach you employ with regular types.
In this context, there is no functional difference between the two functions. As you noticed, local functions have access to local variables without explicitly passing them. In your example you might prefer to use generate1 for easier reading.
Related
I have a function that solves the problem of Go not allowing for the setting of default values in method declarations. I want to make it just a little bit better by allowing for a variable number of return variables. I understand that I can allow for an array of interfaces as a return type and then create an interface array with all the variables to return, like this:
func SetParams(params []interface{}, args ...interface{}) (...[]interface{}) {
var values []interface{}
for i := range params {
var value interface{}
paramType := reflect.TypeOf(params[i])
if len(args) < (i + 1) {
value = params[i]
} else {
argType := reflect.TypeOf(args[i])
if paramType != argType {
value = params[i]
}
value = args[i]
}
values = append(values, value)
}
return values
}
This is an example of a method you want to define default values for. You build it as a variadic function (allowing a variable number of parameters) and then define the default values of the specific params you are looking for inside the function instead of in the declaration line.
func DoSomething(args ...interface{}) {
//setup default values
str := "default string 1"
num := 1
str2 := "default string 2"
//this is fine
values := SetParams([]interface{str, num, str2}, args)
str = values[0].(string)
num = values[1].(int)
str = values[2].(string)
//I'd rather support this
str, num, str2 = SetParams(params, args)
}
I understand that
[]interface{str, num, str2}
in the above example is not syntactically correct. I did it that way to simplify my post. But, it represents another function that builds the array of interfaces.
I would like to support this:
str, num, str2 = SetParams(params, args)
instead of having to do this:
values := SetParams([]interface{str, num, str2}, args)
str = values[0].(string)
num = values[1].(int)
str = values[2].(string)
Any advice? Help?
Please don't write horrible (and ineffective due to reflect) code to solve nonexistent problem.
As was indicated in comments, turning a language into
one of your previous languages is indeed compelling
after a switch, but this is counterproductive.
Instead, it's better to work with the idioms and approaches
and best practices the language provides --
even if you don't like them (yet, maybe).
For this particular case you can roll like this:
Make the function which wants to accept
a list of parameters with default values
accept a single value of a custom struct type.
For a start, any variable of such type, when allocated,
has all its fields initialized with the so-called "zero values"
appropriate to their respective types.
If that's enough, you can stop there: you will be able
to pass values of your struct type to your functions
by producing them via literals right at the call site --
initializing only the fields you need.
Otherwise have pre-/post- processing code which
would provide your own "zero values" for the fields
you need.
Update on 2016-08-29:
Using a struct type to simulate optional parameters
using its fields being assigned default values which happen
to be Go's native zero values for their respective data types:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type params struct {
foo string
bar int
baz float32
}
func myfun(params params) {
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", params)
}
func main() {
myfun(params{})
myfun(params{bar: 42})
myfun(params{foo: "xyzzy", baz: 0.3e-2})
}
outputs:
main.params{foo:"", bar:0, baz:0}
main.params{foo:"", bar:42, baz:0}
main.params{foo:"xyzzy", bar:0, baz:0.003}
As you can see, Go initializes the fields of our params type
with the zero values appropriate to their respective types
unless we specify our own values when we define our literals.
Playground link.
Providing default values which are not Go-native zero values for
the fields of our custom type can be done by either pre-
or post-processing the user-submitted value of a compound type.
Post-processing:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type params struct {
foo string
bar int
baz float32
}
func (pp *params) setDefaults() {
if pp.foo == "" {
pp.foo = "ahem"
}
if pp.bar == 0 {
pp.bar = -3
}
if pp.baz == 0 { // Can't really do this to FP numbers; for demonstration purposes only
pp.baz = 0.5
}
}
func myfun(params params) {
params.setDefaults()
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", params)
}
func main() {
myfun(params{})
myfun(params{bar: 42})
myfun(params{foo: "xyzzy", baz: 0.3e-2})
}
outputs:
main.params{foo:"ahem", bar:-3, baz:0.5}
main.params{foo:"ahem", bar:42, baz:0.5}
main.params{foo:"xyzzy", bar:-3, baz:0.003}
Playground link.
Pre-processing amounts to creating a "constructor" function
which would return a value of the required type pre-filled
with the default values your choice for its fields—something
like this:
func newParams() params {
return params{
foo: "ahem",
bar: -3,
baz: 0.5,
}
}
so that the callers of your function could call newParams(),
tweak its fields if they need and then pass the resulting value
to your function:
myfunc(newParams())
ps := newParams()
ps.foo = "xyzzy"
myfunc(ps)
This approach is maybe a bit more robust than post-processing but
it precludes using of literals to construct the values to pass to
your function right at the call site which is less "neat".
Recently I was playing with anonymous functions in Go and implemented an example which accepts and returns undefined parameters:
func functions() (funcArray []func(args ... interface{}) (interface{}, error)) {
type ret struct{
first int
second string
third bool
}
f1 := func(args ... interface{}) (interface{}, error){
a := args[0].(int)
b := args[1].(int)
return (a < b), nil
}
funcArray = append(funcArray , f1)
f2 := func(args ... interface{}) (interface{}, error){
return (args[0].(string) + args[1].(string)), nil
}
funcArray = append(funcArray , f2)
f3 := func(args ... interface{}) (interface{}, error){
return []int{1,2,3}, nil
}
funcArray = append(funcArray , f3)
f4 := func(args ... interface{}) (interface{}, error){
return ret{first: 1, second: "2", third: true} , nil
}
funcArray = append(funcArray , f4)
return funcArray
}
func main() {
myFirst_Function := functions()[0]
mySecond_Function := functions()[1]
myThird_Function := functions()[2]
myFourth_Function := functions()[3]
fmt.Println(myFirst_Function(1,2))
fmt.Println(mySecond_Function("1","2"))
fmt.Println(myThird_Function())
fmt.Println(myFourth_Function ())
}
I hope it helps you.
https://play.golang.org/p/d6dSYLwbUB9
A simple example:
package main
import "fmt"
func hereTakeTwo() (x, y int) {
x = 0
y = 1
return
}
func gimmeOnePlease(x int){
fmt.Println(x)
}
func main() {
gimmeOnePlease(hereTakeTwo()) // fix me
}
Is it possible to pass only first returned value from hereTakeTwo() without using an explicit _ assignment? Example of what I would like to avoid:
func main() {
okJustOne, _ := hereTakeTwo()
gimmeOnePlease(okJustOne)
}
What I want is to make gimmeOnePlease function able to receive an undefined number of arguments but take only first one OR a way to call hereTakeTwo function and get only first returned value without the necessity to use _ assignments.
Or on a last resort (crazy idea) use some kind of adapter function, that takes N args and reurns only first one, and have something like:
func main() {
gimmeOnePlease(adapter(hereTakeTwo()))
}
Why? I'm just testing the boundaries of the language and learning how flexible it can be to some purposes.
No, you cannot do that apart from one special case described in the Spec:
As a special case, if the return values of a function or method g are equal in number and individually assignable to the parameters of another function or method f, then the call f(g(parameters_of_g)) will invoke f after binding the return values of g to the parameters of f in order. The call of f must contain no parameters other than the call of g, and g must have at least one return value.
The best you can do besides the temporary variables (which are the best option) is this:
func first(a interface{}, _ ...interface{}) interface{} {
return a
}
func main() {
gimmeOnePlease(first(hereTakeTwo()).(int))
}
Playground: http://play.golang.org/p/VXv-tsYjXt
Variadic version: http://play.golang.org/p/ulpdp3Hppj
In go there are functions which return two values or more values, commonly one is an error. Suppose that I want to store the first return value into an already initialized variable, but I would like to initialize the variable to contain the error inline. Is there a way to do this?
For example, say I had this code
var a int
//This code doesn't compile because err doesn't exist
a, err = SomeFuncWithTwoReturnValues()
//This code doesn't compile either
a, err := SomeFuncWithTwoReturnValues()
I know you could do this, but I was hoping there was a way to do it all inline
var a int
var err error
a, err = SomeFuncWithTwoReturnValues()
or
a, err := SomeFuncWithTwoReturnValues()
EDIT: The code above actually compiles, so I looked back at my code to drill down more and have created a quick sample that actually replicates the problem (not just in my mind...).
package main
func myfunc() (int, int) {
return 1, 1
}
func main() {
a := make([]int, 1)
a[0], b := myfunc()
a[0] = b
}
Compiler says main.go|9| non-name a[0] on left side of :=. If I make it = instead of := though then b is never created. I get the feeling that there is not shorthand way to do it though.
As you've mentioned in the comments, you'll need to use the = operator in order to assign to a variable you've already declared. The := operator is used to simultaneously declare and assign a variable. The two are the same:
var x int
x = 5
//is the same as
x := 5
This solution will at least compile:
package main
func myfunc() (int, int) {
return 1, 1
}
func main() {
var b int
a := make([]int, 1)
a[0], b = myfunc()
a[0] = b
}
To answer your question, I don't think there is a way to simultaneously use an undeclared and a declared variable when returning multiple values. That would be trying to use two different operators simultaneously.
Edit: just saw your example from the code that compiles, so it appears you're already familiar with go's assignment operators. I'll leave the example up anyway.
Golang is not a very consistent language. This is a good example. At the beginning I was confused and it would be much simpler if they would always allow the := operator. The compiler is smart enough to detect already declared variables:
package main
import "fmt"
func testFunc() (int,error) {
return 42,fmt.Errorf("Test Error")
}
func main() {
number1,err := testFunc() // OK
number2,err := testFunc() // OK, even if err is already defined
number1,err = testFunc() // OK
// number1,err := testFunc() // ERROR: no new variables on left side of :=
fmt.Println(number1,number2,err)
}
Playground Link: https://play.golang.org/p/eZVB-kG6RtX
It's not consistent, because golang allows you to use := for already declared variables if you assign to them while also introducing a new variable. So the compiler can detect that variables already exists and skip their declaration. But the golang developers decided to allow that only if you introduce at least one new value. The last example shows that.
I ran into this situation like this:
package main
import "os"
func main() {
var cache struct { dir string }
// undefined: err
cache.dir, err = os.UserCacheDir()
// non-name cache.dir on left side of :=
cache.dir, err := os.UserCacheDir()
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
println(cache.dir)
}
as you discovered, this issue does not have a clean solution. You can declare
an extra variable:
dir, err := os.UserCacheDir()
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
cache := userCache{dir}
Or, while more verbose, you can declare the error beforehand. This can save
memory, as Go does not use a Rust ownership model:
var (
cache struct { dir string }
err error
)
cache.dir, err = os.UserCacheDir()
As mention in the spec, while using:=, if one of the variables is new, then the old one will just be assigned with the new data.
Unlike regular variable declarations, a short variable declaration may redeclare variables provided they were originally declared earlier in the same block (or the parameter lists if the block is the function body) with the same type, and at least one of the non-blank variables is new. As a consequence, redeclaration can only appear in a multi-variable short declaration. Redeclaration does not introduce a new variable; it just assigns a new value to the original.
field1, offset := nextField(str, 0)
field2, offset := nextField(str, offset) // redeclares offset
As mentioned by the other answers you cannot use assignment and declaration in the same return statement. You have to use either.
However I guess the main reason for your question is cleaning up the code so you don't have to declare an extra err variable above the method or function statement.
You can solve this in two ways:
Declare a global var err error variable and use it in the assignment:
var err error
func MyFunc(someInput string) {
var a int
a, err = someOtherFunction()
}
If your method or function returns an error you can use the declared return variable
func MyFunc(someInput string) (err error) {
var a int
a, err = someOtherFunction()
return
}
I mainly have the problem in methods when I want to assign something to a struct member, e.g.:
type MyStruct struct {
so string
}
func (m *MyStruct) SomeMethod() (err error) {
m.so, err = SomeFunction()
// handle error and continue or return it
return
}
in go tutorial following code is often seen:
a := foo()
b, c := foo()
or actually what I see is:
m["Answer"] = 48
a := m["Answer"]
v, ok := m["Answer"]
how many foo() is defined?
Is it two, one with one return type, another with two return type?
Or just one foo() with two return type defined, and somehow magically when only need one return value (a := foo()), another return value is omitted?
I tried
package main
func main() {
a := foo()
a = 1
}
func foo() (x, y int) {
x = 1
y = 2
return
}
func foo() (y int) {
y = 2
return
}
But I got error message foo redeclared in this block
While some built in operations support both single and multiple return value modes (like reading from a map, type assertions, or using the range keyword in loops), this feature is not available to user defined functions.
If you want two versions of a function with different return values, you will need to give them different names.
The Effective Go tutorial has some good information on this.
Basically, a function defines how many values it returns with it's return statement, and it's function signature.
To ignore one or more of the returned values you should use the Blank Identifier, _(Underscore).
For example:
package main
import "fmt"
func singleReturn() string {
return "String returned"
}
func multiReturn() (string, int) {
return "String and integer returned", 1
}
func main() {
s := singleReturn()
fmt.Println(s)
s, i := multiReturn()
fmt.Println(s, i)
}
Playground
The v, ok := m["answer"] example you've given is an example of the "comma, ok" idiom (Also described in the Effective Go link above). The linked documentation uses type assertions as an example of it's use:
To extract the string we know is in the value, we could write:
str := value.(string)
But if it turns out that the value does not contain a string, the program will crash with a run-time error. To guard against that, use the "comma, ok" idiom to test, safely, whether the value is a string:
str, ok := value.(string)
if ok {
fmt.Printf("string value is: %q\n", str)
} else {
fmt.Printf("value is not a string\n")
}
If the type assertion fails, str will still exist and be of type string, but it will have the zero value, an empty string.
What benefits arise from naming a function's return parameter(s)?
func namedReturn(i int) (ret int) {
ret = i
i += 2
return
}
func anonReturn(i int) int {
ret := i
i += 2
return ret
}
There are some benefits to naming them:
It serves as documentation.
They are auto-declared and initialized to the zero values.
If you have multiple return sites, you don't need to change them all if you change the function's return values since it will just say "return".
There are also downsides, mainly that it's easy to accidentally shadow them by declaring a variable of the same name.
Effective Go has a section on named result parameters:
The return or result "parameters" of a Go function can be given names
and used as regular variables, just like the incoming parameters. When
named, they are initialized to the zero values for their types when
the function begins; if the function executes a return statement with
no arguments, the current values of the result parameters are used as
the returned values.
The names are not mandatory but they can make code shorter and
clearer: they're documentation. If we name the results of nextInt it
becomes obvious which returned int is which.
func nextInt(b []byte, pos int) (value, nextPos int) {
[...]
Another special use for a named return variable is to be captured by a deferred function literal. A trivial illustration:
package main
import (
"errors"
"fmt"
)
func main() {
fmt.Println(f())
}
var harmlessError = errors.New("you should worry!")
func f() (err error) {
defer func() {
if err == harmlessError {
err = nil
}
}()
return harmlessError
}
Output is <nil>. In more practical scenarios, the deferred function may handle panics, and may modify other return values besides an error result. The magic in common though, is that the deferred literal has a chance to modify the return values of f after f is terminated, either normally or by panic.
It's useful in at least two cases:
Whenever you have to declare variables that you're going to return. E.g.
func someFunc() (int, error) {
var r int
var e error
ok := someOtherFunc(&r) // contrived, I admit
if !ok {
return r, someError()
}
return r, nil
}
vs.
func someFunc() (r int, e error) {
ok := someOtherFunc(&r)
if !ok {
e = someError()
}
return
}
This gets more important as the number of execution paths through the function increases.
When you're documenting return values and want to refer to them by name. godoc considers the return variables part of a function's signature.
For example, named return parameters are accessible by, well, name.
func foo() (a, b, c T) {
// ...
if qux {
b = bar()
}
// ...
return
}
This is not easy to replicate w/o named return parameters. One would have to introduce local variables of essentially the same functionality as named return parameters:
func foo() (T, T, T) {
var a, b, c T
// ...
if qux {
b = bar()
}
// ...
return a, b, c
}
So it's easier to allow that directly.
Additionally, they are accessible also in the other direction:
func foo() (a, b, c T) {
// ...
if a > c {
b = bar()
}
// ...
return
}
Etc.