Say we have a struct like so:
type Foo struct {
one string
two int
}
is it possible to declare literal values for this, something like:
type Foo struct {
one "foobar"
two int
}
or
type Foo struct {
one string
two 5678
}
basically for some objects we might have a hardcoded value for a field.
No, Go does not support literal types (a la TypeScript). Moreover, it actually can't, because of zero values.
Every type has a zero value which always exists and is always assignable to it. When variables of a type are declared, they are implicitly assigned to their type's zero value.
For integer (int, uint, int32, uint32, int64, uin64) or float (float32, float64) or complex (complex64 or complex128) types, this is just 0 (0.0 respectively).
For string types, this is the empty string "".
For slices, maps, pointers, channels, and interfaces, the zero value is nil.
For arrays (not slices: arrays are value-types with statically-known length); their zero value is just the zero value of the element type repeated to fill every slot
The zero value of a struct type is a struct all of whose fields are zero values
In any case, because it is always possible for any type to have a zero value, it would be incompatible to create a type which only allows for any particular non-zero value.
The best a literal type "foo" could possibly represent is that the value is either "foo" or the zero value "" (and no, Go doesn't support this anyway).
The closest you'll be able to do is a constant declaration, or a receiver function that just-so-happens to return a fixed value instead of an actual field.
Go is statically typed language, meaning every variable need to be declared with specific data type.
Setting default value for each fields inside a struct on declaration is not possible in Go. it's not supported.
But maybe you can do something like this.
type Foo struct {
one string
two int
}
func NewFoo() *Foo {
foo := new(Foo)
foo.one = "default value for one"
foo.two = 2
return foo
}
func main() {
objectWithDefaultValueForItsField := NewFoo()
}
What I did is basically just created a function with name isNew<struct name>(). This function returns a new object with default value for each of the fields defined.
Notable exception, for object that created from anonymous struct, the default value of the fields can be specified on declaration. i.e.
obj := struct {
one string
two int
}{
"default value for one",
2,
}
Related
I just want to confirm if my understanding is correct about interface{}{}
Does interface{}{} mean a composite literal of interface type?
So, if I wanted to pass a composite type, lets say []byte as a interface{}, I should assign it to a variable of type interface{}{} and pass in that variable, whereas if I wanted to pass a non composite type, such as a int as a interface{}, I should assign it to a variable of type interface{} and pass in that variable.
Is my understanding correct on this?
interface{}{} is invalid syntax.
It is not an empty interface composite literal — there's no such thing. The following don't compile:
var a interface{}{} = "foo" // not a type
b := interface{}{} // not a value
From the specs Composite Literals:
Composite literals construct values for structs, arrays, slices, and maps and create a new value each time they are evaluated.
The valid syntax is interface{}, which is the empty interface, i.e. an interface with no name and empty method set.
If you compare it to a named interface, you will see that the extra set of curly braces at the end makes no sense:
type Fooer interface {
Foo() error
}{} // ???
You can instantiate an empty interface{} by converting nil:
a := (interface{})(nil)
Or you can declare a var of unnamed interface type:
type A struct {}
func (a A) Foo() string {
return "foo"
}
var a interface{ Foo() string } = A{}
To answer your question:
So, if I wanted to pass a composite type [...]
you can assign any value to a variable of type interface{}, that's about it. Whether the value is composite or not is irrelevant because all types satisfy the empty interface:
var a interface{} = []byte{0x01, 0x02}
var b interface{} = "string_literal"
Playground: https://play.golang.org/p/w-l1dU-6Hb5
The empty interface interface{} essentially says "I don't care". Anything can be passed as an empty interface. So for your examples they all could be stored as the empty interface.
Possibly a more interesting question is why you want to avoid types in the first place, and what you're trying to achieve. But for the purposes of using interface{} you can pass anything to it, even a "nil".
interface{} type of empty interface.
you assign []byte or int to any empty variable of empty interface (interface{} type) or you can pass it directly to function that exepts interface values.
Consider the following code in Go
type A struct {
f int
}
type B struct {
f int `somepkg:"somevalue"`
}
func f() {
var b *B = (*B)(&A{1}) // <-- THIS
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", b)
}
Will the marked line result in a memory copy (which I would like to avoid as A has many fields attached to it) or will it be just a reinterpretation, similar to casting an int to an uint?
EDIT: I was concerned, whether the whole struct would have to be copied, similarly to converting a byte slice to a string. A pointer copy is therefore a no-op for me
It is called a conversion. The expression (&A{}) creates a pointer to an instance of type A, and (*B) converts that pointer to a *B. What's copied there is the pointer, not the struct. You can validate this using the following code:
a:=A{}
var b *B = (*B)(&a)
b.f=2
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", a)
Prints 2.
The crucial points to understand is that
First, unlike C, C++ and some other languages of their ilk, Go does not have type casting, it has type conversions.
In most, but not all, cases, type conversion changes the type but not the internal representation of a value.
Second, as to whether a type conversion "is a no-op", depends on how you define the fact of being a no-op.
If you are concerned with a memory copy being made, there are two cases:
Some type conversions are defined to drastically change the value's representation or to copy memory; for example:
Type-converting a value of type string to []rune would interpret the value as a UTF-8-encoded byte stream, decode each encoded Unicode code point and produce a freshly-allocated slice of decoded Unicode runes.
Type-converting a value of type string to []byte, and vice-versa, will clone the backing array underlying the value.
Other type-conversions are no-op in this sense but in order for them to be useful you'd need to either assign a type-converted value to some variable or to pass it as an argument to a function call or send to a channel etc — in other words, you have to store the result or otherwise make use of it.
All of such operations do copy the value, even though it does not "look" like this; consider:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type A struct {
X int
}
type B struct {
X int
}
func (b B) Whatever() {
fmt.Println(b.X)
}
func main() {
a := A{X: 42}
B(a).Whatever()
b := B(a)
b.Whatever()
}
Here, the first type conversion in main does not look like a memory copy, but the resulting value will serve as a receiver in the call to B.Whatever and will be physically copied there.
The second type conversion stores the result in a variable (and then copies it again when a method is called).
Reasonong about such things is easy in Go as there everything, always, is passed by value (and pointers are values, too).
It may worth adding that variables in Go does not store the type of the value they hold, so a type conversion cannot mutate the type of a variable "in place". Values do not have type information stored in them, either. This basically means that type conversions is what compiler is concerned with: it knows the types of all the participating values and variables and performs type checking.
I don't understand the meaning of the double {}. This is not made clear in any learning material. Thanks.
variable <-struct {}{}
I don't understand the meaning of the double {}.
struct {}{}
In long form,
type T struct{}
var t = T{}
struct {} is a type, a struct with no fields, and struct {}{} is a composite literal, with zero values, of that type.
References:
The Go Programming Language Specification
Struct types
Composite literals
The zero value
variable is a variable of type channel (values are sent on it)
<- is a send operator
struct{} is type empty struct (has no fields)
{} makes it a struct literal (creates a value of the given struct type)
To better understand this form let me give you an example of a different struct type:
p := struct{ X, Y float64 }{0.0, 0.0}
I have an interface that defines one parameter to have type func(interface{}, proto.Message) interface{} and I'm trying to pass something of type func reduceMsg(a interface{}, b proto.Message) []*PersistentData to it. This results in the following compiler error:
Cannot use reduceMsg (type func(a interface{}, b proto.Message) []*PersistentData as type func(interface{}, proto.Message) interface{}
What is the reason for this error, and how can I work around it? It seems like returning a more specific type than interface{} should be legal. Here's a simple complete example that illustrates the issue:
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
var t func() interface{} = func() []string { return []string{} }
fmt.Println(t)
}
The type of the object is the whole function signature. If the signature don't match, then it's not the same type and can't be assigned that way.
Anything can be assigned to the empty interface, because all types satisfy the interface, but in your problem neither type is the empty interface, you just have a function that returns an empty interface.
Not because a part of the function can be assigned to another it makes it the same. The type is the whole function signature. I think it's the same logic behind not being able to assign an int to an int8. You can cast them if you want, but for go, they are separate types and you need to deal with making the necessary conversions to be able to assign them.
What you can do is change your second function signature to return an empty interface like this:
func(interface{}, proto.Message) interface{}
func reduceMsg(a interface{}, b proto.Message) interface{} {
var a []*PersistentData
// do something here
return a
}
This way the function signature is the same, so it's consider the same type and you are returning an []*PersistentData. Of course you will need to do a type assertion before using it as such because the program will treat it as an {}interface because that is the type that the function returned.
Referencing the spec,
In assignments, each value must be assignable to the type of the operand to which it is assigned, with the following special cases:
Any typed value may be assigned to the blank identifier.
If an untyped constant is assigned to a variable of interface type or the blank identifier, the constant is first converted to its default type.
If an untyped boolean value is assigned to a variable of interface type or the blank identifier, it is first converted to type bool.
Assignability
A value x is assignable to a variable of type T ("x is assignable to T") in any of these cases:
x's type is identical to T.
x's type V and T have identical underlying types and at least one of V or T is not a named type.
T is an interface type and x implements T.
x is a bidirectional channel value, T is a channel type, x's type V and T have identical element types, and at least one of V or T is not a named type.
x is the predeclared identifier nil and T is a pointer, function, slice, map, channel, or interface type.
x is an untyped constant representable by a value of type T.
In general, Go doesn't allow you to implicitly convert values from one type to another, with the exception of being able to use concrete-typed objects as though they were interfaces (that they implement).
In this particular case, since your function doesn't actually return an interface{}, the compiler would have to do some extra work to wrap up the return value as an interface{} and return it; if you really want to accomplish what you're trying you can do this explicitly yourself:
type Foo struct {
X int
}
func create(x int) Foo {
return Foo{X: x}
}
func main() {
var f func(int) interface{} = func(x int) interface{} {
return create(x)
}
}
which is basically doing (explicitly) the wrapping operation that you want the runtime to do implicitly.
var cache = struct {
sync.Mutex
mapping map[string]string
} {
mapping: make(map[string]string),
}
This looks like a struct with an embedded field sync.Mutex but I can't get my head around the second set of braces. It compiles and executes but what's up? Why does the label on the make instruction matter (it does) and the comma? Thanks...
The example you have is equivalent to:
type Cache struct {
sync.Mutex
mapping map[string]string
}
cache := Cache{
mapping: make(map[string]string),
}
Except in your example you do not declare a type of Cache and instead have an anonymous struct. In your example, as oppose to my Cache type, the type is the entire
struct {
sync.Mutex
mapping map[string]string
}
So think of the second pair of braces as the
cache := Cache{
mapping: make(map[string]string),
}
part.
make is a built in function that works similarly to C's calloc() which both initialize a data structure filled with 0'd values, in Go's case, certain data structures need to be initialized this way, other's (for the most part structs) are initialized with 0'd values automatically. The field there is needed so that the compiler now's cache.mapping is a empty map[string]string.
The comma there is part of Go's formatting, you can do Cache{mapping: make(map[string]string)} all on one line, but the moment the field's assignment is on a different line than the opening and closing braces, it requires a comma.
This is called a "struct literal" or an "anonymous struct" and is, in fact, how you always create structs in Go, it just may not be immediately obvious since you might be used to creating new types for struct types to make declaring them a bit less verbose.
An entire struct definition is actually a type in Go, just like int or []byte or string. Just as you can do:
type NewType int
var a NewType = 5 // a is a NewType (which is based on an int)
or:
a := 5 // a is an int
and both are distinct types that look like ints, you can also do the same thing with structs:
// a is type NewType (which is a struct{}).
type NewType struct{
A string
}
a := NewType{
A: "test string",
}
// a is type struct{A string}
a := struct{
A string
}{
A: "test string",
}
the type name (NewType) has just been replaced with the type of the struct itself, struct{A string}. Note that they are not the same type (an alias) for the purpose of comparison or assignment, but they do share the same semantics.