I have completed the strains exercise on exercism.io. I am refactoring my solution. For context: Ints.Keep takes in a predicate function and returns a filtered slice of type Ints for every element where the predicate function is true. Conversely Discard returns all elements for which the predicate is not true. Discard returns the inverse of Keep. I implemented it like so:
func (i Ints) Keep(pred func(int) bool) (out Ints) {
for _, elt := range i {
if pred(elt) {
out = append(out, elt)
}
}
return
}
func (i Ints) Discard(f func(int) bool) Ints {
return i.Keep(func(n int) bool { return !f(n) })
}
Example usage
Now I am trying to clean it up slightly. I want to create:
type Predicate func(int) bool
Then I want to implement Keep and Discard where the input is a Predicate. I run into the issue when I try to create an anonymous function within Discard to return Keep:
func (i Ints) Discard(p Predicate) Ints {
return i.Keep(Predicate(n int) { return !p(n) })
}
Is this possible? I can't find a way to create an anonymous function of a named func type.
You can do it by casting the anonymous function as a Predicate Like this:
func (i Ints) Discard(p Predicate) Ints {
return i.Keep(Predicate(func(i int) bool { return !p(i) }))
}
This isn't quite as clean as I wanted, but I bet this is the best.
I guess you are misunderstanding text replacement with type subtitution, see:
f func(int) bool gets replaced by p Predicate
func and bool (wrapping (n int)) somehow gets replaced by Predicate.
As far i remember type substitution is very straightforward and that is not the case here... "Mu is too short" highlights a good example if you insist on using type... although it is perfect to use anonymous functions definitions and declarations.
Another way to write code that comes to my mind that you might find useful is:
type Predicate func(int) bool
func (i Ints) Discard(pred Predicate) Ints {
var anonymousComplementFunc Predicate = func(n int) bool {
return !pred(n)
}
return i.Keep(anonymousComplementFunc)
}
Related
I’m new to Go and to practice I do some coding exercice on Exercism. I stubbled on a particular exercice in which I’m having a hard time undestanding the solution. Here’s the code:
// Ints defines a collection of int values
type Ints []int
// Lists defines a collection of arrays of ints
type Lists [][]int
// Strings defines a collection of strings
type Strings []string
// Keep filters a collection of ints to only contain the members where the provided function returns true.
func (i Ints) Keep(strainer func(int) bool) (o Ints) {
for _, v := range i {
if strainer(v) {
o = append(o, v)
}
}
return
}
// Discard filters a collection to only contain the members where the provided function returns false.
func (i Ints) Discard(strainer func(int) bool) Ints {
return i.Keep(func(n int) bool { return !strainer(n) })
}
My Problem comes with the Discard Method, I dont understand the second return statement in the curly braces since the Keep function is suppose to return a value of type Ints and not a boolean statement unless I missed something, if someone could break down the Discard function for me it would be helpful.
Thanks
The Keep method takes a function as a parameter. It expects it to be func (int) bool - a function taking an int and returning a bool.
When Keep is invoked in Discard, the code passes it an anonymous function with the right signature (take int, return bool). This anonymous function invokes strainer (which is a function passed into Discard) and returns its response, negated.
The idea is that strainer is a filter function: it tells you which elements to keep. So the implementation of Keep is straightforward: iterate over all elements, and keep only those for which strainer returns true.
Discard is written in a clever way using Keep, instead of also writing a loop like this:
func (i Ints) Discard(strainer func(int) bool) (o Ints) {
for _, v := range i {
if !strainer(v) {
o = append(o, v)
}
}
return
}
It instead invokes Keep with a function that inverts the result of strainer.
Suppose, I have a Eval struct and multiple goroutines can call its Evaluate method to get the value of the result field. Following is the basic structure of code:
type Eval struct {
done bool
result interface{}
}
func (e *Eval) Evaluate(f func() interface{}) interface{} {
if e.done == false {
e.result = f()
e.done = true
}
return e.result
}
As the function passed as argument of Evaluate method can take quite some time to execute, so I want to prevent calling that function multiple times. Only the first goroutine to call the Evaluate function will actually "evaluate" the value of result. The other goroutines will simply wait for the result field to be ready.
Here is what I came up with:
type Eval struct {
mu *sync.Mutex
cond *sync.Cond // cond uses mu as sync.Locker
once *sync.Once
done bool
result interface{}
}
func (e *Eval) Evaluate(f func() interface{}) interface{} {
go e.once.Do(func() {
defer e.cond.Broadcast()
v := f()
e.mu.Lock()
e.result = v
e.done = true
e.mu.Unlock()
})
e.mu.Lock()
if e.done == false {
e.cond.Wait()
}
v := e.result
e.mu.Unlock()
return v
}
But I feel like it is an overkill and using a sync.Mutex to control access to a variable that will be written once and read many times is not the efficient solution. What is the best and most "golang" way to achieve what I want?
Edit: As mentioned in comment, only using sync.Once does the job.
What cast / assertion need I do in Go in order to pass to a function expecting a generic function like func(interface{}) interface{}, a more specific function like func(int) int instead?
For example, in code like this, fooA can be passed to MakeExclamer, but not fooB:
func MakeExclamer(foo func (interface{}) interface{}, n int) func () {
return func() {
fmt.Printf("%v!!!", foo(n))
}
}
func fooA(x interface{}) interface{} {
return x.(int)*2
}
func fooB(x int) int {
return x * 10
}
func main() {
exclamerA := MakeExclamer(fooA, 12)
exclamerA()
exclamerB := MakeExclamer(fooB, 66)
// >> cannot use fooB (type func(int) int) as type func(interface {}) interface {} in argument to MakeExclamer
exclamerB()
}
(Go Playground link: https://play.golang.org/p/xGzfco0IAG)
I'm not interested much in alternative code structure patterns, since this is how I want it to work: a specific function should be passed to a general function transformer (accepting function of type Any -> Any) that will return another general function (Any -> Any). This may not be idiomatic in Go, but it is the pattern that I want my code to follow.
To use type assertions, every possible type must be enumerated in MakeExclamer:
func MakeExclamer(fn interface{}, arg interface{}) func() {
switch fn := fn.(type) {
case func(int) int:
return func() {
fmt.Printf("%v!!!\n", fn(arg.(int)))
}
case func(interface{}) interface{}:
return func() {
fmt.Printf("%v!!!\n", fn(arg))
}
default:
panic("not supported")
}
}
To accept a function of any type, the fn argument is declared as type interface{}. The code uses a type switch to handle the different function types.
playground example
Reflection can be used to write a more general function.
func MakeExclamer(fn interface{}, arg interface{}) func() {
fnr := reflect.ValueOf(fn)
argr := reflect.ValueOf(arg)
return func() {
resultr := fnr.Call([]reflect.Value{argr})
fmt.Printf("%v!!!\n", resultr[0].Interface())
}
}
playground example
First things first : When it comes to typing in Go, everything is theoretically possible. That's because even though the compiler does a lot of checks at compile-time, it is possible to change the runtime... at runtime. So-called runtime hacks, where you dynamically manipulate runtime structs that you're NOT supposed to handle.
Now, you have an interesting question, whose answer doesn't include the need to use the 'unsafe' package. However, the way I found of generalizing a function involves heavy reflection.
How to call a function (via reflection) ?
The documentation for the reflect package can be found here.
So, like all elements in Golang, functions have a Type. Without going through all fields, functions do take an array of arguments and produce an array of results. It is possible to investigate the Type of arguments and results through the In(int) and Out(int) method.
func investigate(fn interface{}) {
fnType := reflect.TypeOf(fn)
for idx := 0; idx < fnType.NumIn(); idx ++ {
fmt.Printf("Input arg %d has type %v\n", idx, fnType.In(idx))
}
for idx := 0; idx < fnType.NumOut(); idx ++ {
fmt.Printf("Output arg %d has type %v\n", idx, fnType.Out(idx))
}
}
We won't use this code. However, two important things are to be noted at this point :
The generic type under which a function can be passed around without caring about its type is interface{}. Something like "func(interface{}) interface{}" is not a generalization of a function, it is already a concrete type. Hence, "func(interface{}) interface{}" is not a generalization of "func(int) int", those are two different function types entirely. This is why you can't use type assertions/cast to convert from one function type to another.
A function can be represented as something that takes an input array and produces and output array.
Now, in order to call a function, you have to get not its Type, but its Value. Once you get its value, you can call it using an array of arguments, which must all be Values.
The prototype is:
func (v Value) Call(in []Value) []Value
Using this method, it is possible to call any function.
The code
So, the only thing you need is to convert whichever arguments array you have to an array of Values, then you will be able to call your function.
Here is your code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"reflect"
)
func MakeExclamer(foo interface{}, n int) func() {
exclamer := generalize(foo, n)
return func() {
fmt.Printf("%v!!!\n", exclamer())
}
}
func fooA(x interface{}) interface{} {
return x.(int) * 2
}
func fooB(x int) int {
return x * 10
}
func generalize(implem interface{}, args ...interface{}) func() interface{} {
valIn := make([]reflect.Value, len(args), len(args))
fnVal := reflect.ValueOf(implem)
for idx, elt := range args {
valIn[idx] = reflect.ValueOf(elt)
}
ret := func() interface{} {
res := fnVal.Call(valIn)
// We assume the function produces exactly one result
return res[0].Interface()
}
return ret
}
func main() {
exclamerA := MakeExclamer(fooA, 12)
exclamerA()
exclamerB := MakeExclamer(fooB, 66)
exclamerB()
}
Playground
The important bit is the generalize function which makes the translation between your arguments and an array of Values, then returns a new function whith all parameters already filled.
Do not hesitate if you need any precision !
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.
Go functions can return multiple values:
func f() (int, int) {
return 2, 3
}
Is there any way to access individual values from such a multi-value returning function except assignment, i.e. suppose there is
func g(i int) {...}
is there is simpler way to write the following two lines?
_, i = f()
g(i)
My personal favorite would be g(f()[1]) but that's not possible either.
The current solution used by the standard library is to write simple helper functions which are dropping the unwanted return values. For example, take a look at the template package.
A lot of functions there return a (*Template, os.Error) tuple, but there is a helper called template.Must() which only returns a *Template and panics if the error isn't nil.
Alternatively, a general helper function like func extract(index int, values ...interface{}) interface{} might do the trick. But since there isn't support for generics yet, I wouldn't write something like that.
Use an anonymous struct instead of multiple return values.
func f() (struct{i,j int}) {
return struct{i, j int}{2, 3}
}
func g(i int) { ... }
func main() {
g(f().j)
}
Of course this only works when you are writing the function. Though you can wrap existing ones with this if you want.
g(func(fst,snd int) int { return snd }(f()))
or defined snd
func snd(x, y int) int {
return y
}
g(snd(f()))
or if function return array
func f() ([2]int) {
return [2]int{2, 3}
}
g(f()[1])
There isn't a simpler way.
A possible solution would look for example like this:
g(f().1)
There is no syntactic support for a feature like this one in Go.