In my actual code, I'm parsing an XML document using encoding/xml, and I basically have a bunch of nested structures of the following form — all of which may occur multiple times, except the top-level statements element:
statements
statement
opcode
args
pre
post
I'm fairly new to Go, and I'm clearly misunderstanding how interface{} (the empty interface) works:
.\stmtgen.go:58: cannot use print_name (type func(Statement)) as type func(interface {}) in argument to performAction
.\stmtgen.go:58: cannot use slist (type []Statement) as type []interface {} in argument to performAction
Relevant example code:
package main
import "fmt"
// Actually a structure in my code, but this suffices for demonstration.
type Opcode int
// A Statement has a Name and multiple Opcodes may use this Name.
type Statement struct {
Name string
Opcodes []Opcode
}
// Print the statement name.
func print_name(stmt Statement) {
fmt.Println(stmt.Name)
}
// Perform an action on each item of a collection.
func performAction(action func(interface{}), v []interface{}) {
for i := range v {
action(v[i])
}
}
func main() {
slist := make([]Statement, 3)
slist[0] = Statement{"Statement 1"}
slist[1] = Statement{"Statement 2"}
slist[2] = Statement{"Statement 3"}
//ERROR HERE
performAction(print_name, slist)
}
Must I create functions to print the values for every single type?
An empty interface{} can contain any value and passed around as the type interface{}. when you need the value from it, you can perform a type assertion like this:
var anyValue interface{}
anyValue = "hello"
strValue := anyValue.(string)
If anyValue is not of the type being asserted then it will cause a panic
the type assertion can also be used to return a bool if the interface is of that type with a multiple return
strValue, ok := anyValue.(string)
if ok {
//anyValue contains a string!
}
If you dont know the type of the interface, you can use a switch to determine it's type like this:
switch val := anyValue.(type) {
case string:
// anyValue contains a string
// and val is a string
break
case int:
// anyValue contains an int
// and val is and int
break
default:
//unhandled interface type
}
Hopefully this makes the empty interface{} type clearer.
interfaces{...} which have methods declared in them are different, they can not have members (like structs can), only methods, and their underlying type must implement all the methods declared in the interface. You could have an interface actionPerformer (interface names should have the suffix "er" as they are doing something)
type actionPerformer interface {
action(interface{})
}
A type that implements all the methods in an interface can be cast to that interface type, then if you call one of those methods on the interface, it will run the method on the underlying type.
For example, if the Statement struct implements the action(interface{}) method, the Statement struct can be cast to an actionPerformer type and if the action(interface{}) function is called on the actionPerformer, the action function on the Statement struct is run. So you could have multiple types that all have the action(interface{}) method and they can all be cast to an actionPerformer which you can call the action function on.
func (code Opcode) action(arg interface{}) {
fmt.Println(arg.(int) + int(code))
}
func (stmt Statement) action(arg interface{}) {
fmt.Println(arg.(string), stmt.Name)
}
stmt := Statement{"Statement 1", nil}
stmtActionPerformer := actionPerformer(stmt)
opcode := Opcode(5)
opcodeActionPerformer := actionPerformer(opcode)
stmtActionPerformer.action("hello") // will print "hello "+whatever the statements name is
opcodeActionPerformer.action(2) //will print be 7
Type assertions can still be used on these types of interface e.g.
stmt := stmtActionPerformer.(Statement)
fmt.Println(stmt.Name)
This is a contrived example, but with this in mind, you might want to write your code using interfaces like this.
Remember casting between interfaces is costly, so should be done sparingly, however they are a powerful tool when used correctly.
For your example, a simple printNames function would be much more efficient than all that interface casting (note that in golang, names should be in the CamelCase format, not using underscores)
func printNames(stmts []Statement) {
for _, stmt := range stmts {
fmt.Println(stmt.Name)
}
}
It might also be useful to have a type StatementList and add methods to it:
type StatementList []Statement
func (list StatementList) printNames() {
for _, stmt := range list {
fmt.Println(stmt.Name)
}
}
Getting the hang of this stuff make golang a lot more fun, hope this helps :)
You have to declare the parameters of performAction exactly same like the arguments type.
func performAction(action func(Statement), v []Statement) {
for i := range v {
action(v[i])
}
}
Or you could use interface{} on all parameters instead. Then cast it according to the needs.
func performAction(action interface{}, v interface{}) {
for _, each := range v.([]Statement) {
action.(func(Statement))(each)
}
}
data with type []Statement cannot be assigned to []interface{}
also for type func(Statement) cannot be assigned to func(interface{})
Use interface{}, then cast it to the original type.
this works for me:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
// Actually a structure in my code, but this suffices for demonstration.
type Opcode int
// A Statement has a Name and multiple Opcodes may use this Name.
type Statement struct {
Name string
Opcodes []Opcode
}
// Print the statement name.
func print_name(stmt interface{}) {
if s, ok := stmt.(Statement); !ok {
panic("typ err")
} else {
fmt.Println(s.Name)
}
}
// Perform an action on each item of a collection.
func performAction(action func(interface{}), v []interface{}) {
for i := range v {
action(v[i])
}
}
func main() {
slist := make([]interface{}, 3)
slist[0] = Statement{"Statement 1", nil}
slist[1] = Statement{"Statement 2", nil}
slist[2] = Statement{"Statement 3", nil}
performAction(print_name, slist)
/*output:
Statement 1
Statement 2
Statement 3
*/
}
Related
This question already has answers here:
Can I type assert a slice of interface values?
(2 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I have a type that implements the stringer interface
// RowID stores the ID of a single row in a table
type RowID []string
// String implements Stringer interface for RowID
func (r RowID) String() string {
return fmt.Sprintf("[%s]", strings.Join(r, ", "))
}
And I have a function that I want to pass a slice of this type (or any other type that implements the Stringer interface) to.
// PrintChanges ...
func PrintChanges(ids []fmt.Stringer) {
for _, id := range ids {
fmt.Println(id)
}
}
However, The go compiler gives me an error:
cannot use rowIDs (type []RowID) as type []fmt.Stringer in argument to PrintChanges
I can pass a RowID to a func that accepts a single fmt.Stringer
func PrintChange(id fmt.Stringer) {
fmt.Println(id)
}
...
PrintChange(RowID{"1", "24"})
But for some reason I am not able to pass a slice of RowID to a func that accepts a slice of fmt.Stringer. What am I missing?
Go Playground
Keep it simple
It is considered okay by professional Go programmers to repeat functions like this for every type, or to have a for loop over every slice you want to print. This is because Go aims to be as easy to read as possible, i.e. a person who reads a chunk of code for the first time should not be asking questions like "which function overload will this function call go to" (common pitfall in C++, Go does not have function overloads). So you can just write in main():
Playground: https://ideone.com/IL3rGR
for _, id := range rowIDs { fmt.Println(id) }
Simple and concise.
Note that fmt.Println(id) does not call your String() function
This is because the fmt library uses the reflect library and hardcodes behavior for the string type, which you are trying to replace. RowID instances are also string instances, the library always prefers string over its type aliases. I would say it is a bug in the library:
Library source: https://golang.org/src/fmt/print.go#L649
// Some types can be done without reflection.
switch f := arg.(type) {
...
case string:
p.fmtString(f, verb)
If you really want to
You can use a function that takes an interface{} and makes a runtime reflect type cast to a slice of Stringers. Note that this means you will not see type mismatches during compilation, only in runtime:
Playground: https://ideone.com/vlrBP9
func castToStringerSlice(iface interface{}) ([]fmt.Stringer, bool /* ok */) {
if reflect.TypeOf(iface).Kind() != reflect.Slice {
return nil, false
}
v := reflect.ValueOf(iface)
stringers := make([]fmt.Stringer, v.Len())
for i := 0; i < v.Len(); i++ {
stringers[i] = v.Index(i)
}
return stringers, true
}
func PrintChanges(iface_ids interface{}) {
ids, ok := castToStringerSlice(iface_ids)
if !ok {
log.Fatal(errors.New("the argument to PrintChanges must be a slice of Stringers"))
}
for _, id := range ids {
fmt.Println(id)
}
}
Resources:
Go documentation: Why does Go not support overloading of methods and operators?
Go documentation: Why does Go not have generic types?
Stack Overflow: Express function that takes any slice
Stack Overflow: Range over interface{} which stores a slice
Go documentation: Package reflect
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
I'm running into a slight architectural problem with Golang right now that's causing me to copy/paste a bit more code than I'd prefer. I feel like there must be a solution, so please let me know if this is perhaps possible:
When I pass things through an interface {}-typed function parameter, I start getting errors such as "expected struct or slice", etc. ... even though what I passed was previously a struct or a slice. I realize that I could manually convert these to another type after receiving them in that function, but then that become tedious in instances such as this:
local interface type *interface {} can only be decoded from remote
interface type; received concrete type
... In this case, the receiving function seems like it'd need to be hard-coded to convert all interface {} items back to their respective original types in order to work properly, because the receiving function needs to know the exact type in order to process the item correctly.
Is there a way to dynamically re-type Golang interface {} typed variables back to their original type? Something like this, How to I convert reflect.New's return value back to the original type ... maybe?
EDIT: To clarify, basically, I'm passing &out to a function and it needs to be its original type by the time it reaches another inner function call.
Example code:
// NOTE: This is sort of pseudo-Golang code, not meant to be compiled or taken too seriously.
func PrepareTwoDifferentThings(keyA string, keyB string) {
var somethingA TypeA;
var somethingB TypeB;
loadFromCache(keyA, &somethingA, nil);
loadFromCache(keyB, &somethingB, nil);
fmt.Printf("Somethings: %v, %v", somethingA, somethingB);
}
func loadFromCache(key string, isNew, out interface {}, saveNewData interface {}) {
if err := cache.load(key, &out); err!=nil { // NOTE: Current issue is that this expects "&out" to be `TypeA`/`TypeB` not "interface {}", but I don't want to copy and paste this whole function's worth of code or whatever.
panic("oh no!");
}
if (saveNewData!=nil) {
cache.save(key, saveNewData); // This doesn't seem to care if "saveNewData" is "interface {}" when saving, but later cache fetches above using the "load()" method to an "interface {}"-typed `&out` parameter throw an exception that the "interface {}" type on `&out` does not match the original when it was saved here (`TypeA`/`TypeB`).
}
}
To change the type of an interface into its rightful type, you can use type assertions:
package main
import r "reflect"
type A struct {
Name string
}
func main() {
// No pointer
aa := A{"name"}
var ii interface{} = aa
bb := ii.(A)
// main.A
// Pointer
a := &A{"name"}
var i interface{} = a
b := *i.(*A)
// main.A
c := i.(*A)
// *main.A
d := r.Indirect(r.ValueOf(i)).Interface().(A)
// main.A
}
Playground 1
When using type assertions, you have to know the underlying type of your interface. In Go, there is no way to use type assertion with a dynamic type. reflect.Type is not a type, it's an interface representing a type. So no, you can't use it this way.
If you have several type possibilities, the solution is the type switch:
package main
import "fmt"
type TypeA struct {
A string
}
type TypeB struct {
B string
}
func doSomethingA(t TypeA) {
fmt.Println(t.A)
}
func doSomethingB(t TypeB) {
fmt.Println(t.B)
}
func doSomething(t interface{}) {
switch t := t.(type) {
case TypeA:
doSomethingA(t)
case TypeB:
doSomethingB(t)
default:
panic("Unrecognized type")
}
}
func main() {
a := TypeA{"I am A"}
b := TypeB{"I am B"}
doSomething(a)
// I am A
doSomething(b)
// I am B
}
Playground 2
It turns out that using JSON instead of Gob for serialization avoids the error that I was encountering entirely. Other functions can handle passing into interfaces, etc.
I have custom types Int64Array, Channel and ChannelList like:
type Int64Array []int64
func (ia *Int64Array) Scan(src interface{}) error {
rawArray := string(src.([]byte))
if rawArray == "{}" {
*ia = []int64{}
} else {
matches := pgArrayPat.FindStringSubmatch(rawArray)
if len(matches) > 1 {
for _, item := range strings.Split(matches[1], ",") {
i, _ := strconv.ParseInt(item, 10, 64)
*ia = append(*ia, i)
}
}
}
return nil
}
func (ia Int64Array) Value() (driver.Value, error) {
var items []string
for _, item := range ia {
items = append(items, strconv.FormatInt(int64(item), 10))
}
return fmt.Sprintf("{%s}", strings.Join(items, ",")), nil
}
type Channel int64
type ChannelList []Channel
How can I embed Int64Array to ChannelList such that I can call Scan and Value methods on it? I tried the following:
type ChannelList []Channel {
Int64Array
}
but I'm getting syntax error. What's important is to make sure ChannelList items are of type Channel, if this isn't possible via embedding I might just create stand-alone functions to be called by both ChannelList and Int64Array.
An anonymous (or embedded field) is found in a struct (see struct type), not in a type alias (or "type declaration").
You cannot embed a type declaration within another type declaration.
Plus, as illustrated by the answers to "Go: using a pointer to array", you shouldn't be using pointers to slice, use directly the slice themselves (passed by value).
Wessie kindly points out in the comments that (ia *Int64Array) Scan() uses pointer to a slice in order to mutate the underlying array referenced by said slice.
I would prefer returning another slice instead of mutating the existing one.
That being said, the Golang Code Review does mention:
If the receiver is a struct, array or slice and any of its elements is a pointer to something that might be mutating, prefer a pointer receiver, as it will make the intention more clear to the reader.
Can Go have optional parameters? Or can I just define two different functions with the same name and a different number of arguments?
Go does not have optional parameters nor does it support method overloading:
Method dispatch is simplified if it
doesn't need to do type matching as
well. Experience with other languages
told us that having a variety of
methods with the same name but
different signatures was occasionally
useful but that it could also be
confusing and fragile in practice.
Matching only by name and requiring
consistency in the types was a major
simplifying decision in Go's type
system.
A nice way to achieve something like optional parameters is to use variadic args. The function actually receives a slice of whatever type you specify.
func foo(params ...int) {
fmt.Println(len(params))
}
func main() {
foo()
foo(1)
foo(1,2,3)
}
You can use a struct which includes the parameters:
type Params struct {
a, b, c int
}
func doIt(p Params) int {
return p.a + p.b + p.c
}
// you can call it without specifying all parameters
doIt(Params{a: 1, c: 9})
The main advantage over an ellipsis (params ...SomeType) is that you can use the param struct with different parameter types.
For arbitrary, potentially large number of optional parameters, a nice idiom is to use Functional options.
For your type Foobar, first write only one constructor:
func NewFoobar(options ...func(*Foobar) error) (*Foobar, error){
fb := &Foobar{}
// ... (write initializations with default values)...
for _, op := range options{
err := op(fb)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
}
return fb, nil
}
where each option is a function which mutates the Foobar. Then provide convenient ways for your user to use or create standard options, for example :
func OptionReadonlyFlag(fb *Foobar) error {
fb.mutable = false
return nil
}
func OptionTemperature(t Celsius) func(*Foobar) error {
return func(fb *Foobar) error {
fb.temperature = t
return nil
}
}
Playground
For conciseness, you may give a name to the type of the options (Playground) :
type OptionFoobar func(*Foobar) error
If you need mandatory parameters, add them as first arguments of the constructor before the variadic options.
The main benefits of the Functional options idiom are :
your API can grow over time without breaking existing code, because the constuctor signature stays the same when new options are needed.
it enables the default use case to be its simplest: no arguments at all!
it provides fine control over the initialization of complex values.
This technique was coined by Rob Pike and also demonstrated by Dave Cheney.
Neither optional parameters nor function overloading are supported in Go. Go does support a variable number of parameters: Passing arguments to ... parameters
No -- neither. Per the Go for C++ programmers docs,
Go does not support function
overloading and does not support user
defined operators.
I can't find an equally clear statement that optional parameters are unsupported, but they are not supported either.
You can pass arbitrary named parameters with a map. You will have to assert types with "aType = map[key].(*foo.type)" if the parameters have non-uniform types.
type varArgs map[string]interface{}
func myFunc(args varArgs) {
arg1 := "default"
if val, ok := args["arg1"]; ok {
arg1 = val.(string)
}
arg2 := 123
if val, ok := args["arg2"]; ok {
arg2 = val.(int)
}
fmt.Println(arg1, arg2)
}
func Test_test() {
myFunc(varArgs{"arg1": "value", "arg2": 1234})
}
Go doesn’t support optional parameters , default values and function overloading but you can use some tricks to implement the same.
Sharing one example where you can have different number and type of arguments in one function. It’s a plain code for easy understanding you need to add error handling and some logic.
func student(StudentDetails ...interface{}) (name string, age int, area string) {
age = 10 //Here Age and area are optional params set to default values
area = "HillView Singapore"
for index, val := range StudentDetails {
switch index {
case 0: //the first mandatory param
name, _ = val.(string)
case 1: // age is optional param
age, _ = val.(int)
case 2: //area is optional param
area, _ = val.(string)
}
}
return
}
func main() {
fmt.Println(student("Aayansh"))
fmt.Println(student("Aayansh", 11))
fmt.Println(student("Aayansh", 15, "Bukit Gombak, Singapore"))
}
So I feel like I'm way late to this party but I was searching to see if there was a better way to do this than what I already do. This kinda solves what you were trying to do while also giving the concept of an optional argument.
package main
import "fmt"
type FooOpts struct {
// optional arguments
Value string
}
func NewFoo(mandatory string) {
NewFooWithOpts(mandatory, &FooOpts{})
}
func NewFooWithOpts(mandatory string, opts *FooOpts) {
if (&opts) != nil {
fmt.Println("Hello " + opts.Value)
} else {
fmt.Println("Hello")
}
}
func main() {
NewFoo("make it work please")
NewFooWithOpts("Make it work please", &FooOpts{Value: " World"})
}
Update 1:
Added a functional example to show functionality versus the sample
You can encapsulate this quite nicely in a func similar to what is below.
package main
import (
"bufio"
"fmt"
"os"
)
func main() {
fmt.Println(prompt())
}
func prompt(params ...string) string {
prompt := ": "
if len(params) > 0 {
prompt = params[0]
}
reader := bufio.NewReader(os.Stdin)
fmt.Print(prompt)
text, _ := reader.ReadString('\n')
return text
}
In this example, the prompt by default has a colon and a space in front of it . . .
:
. . . however you can override that by supplying a parameter to the prompt function.
prompt("Input here -> ")
This will result in a prompt like below.
Input here ->
You could use pointers and leave them nil if you don't want to use them:
func getPosts(limit *int) {
if optParam != nil {
// fetch posts with limit
} else {
// fetch all posts
}
}
func main() {
// get Posts, limit by 2
limit := 2
getPosts(&limit)
// get all posts
getPosts(nil)
}
Go language does not support method overloading, but you can use variadic args just like optional parameters, also you can use interface{} as parameter but it is not a good choice.
I ended up using a combination of a structure of params and variadic args. This way, I didn't have to change the existing interface which was consumed by several services and my service was able to pass additional params as needed. Sample code in golang playground: https://play.golang.org/p/G668FA97Nu
I am a little late, but if you like fluent interface you might design your setters for chained calls like this:
type myType struct {
s string
a, b int
}
func New(s string, err *error) *myType {
if s == "" {
*err = errors.New(
"Mandatory argument `s` must not be empty!")
}
return &myType{s: s}
}
func (this *myType) setA (a int, err *error) *myType {
if *err == nil {
if a == 42 {
*err = errors.New("42 is not the answer!")
} else {
this.a = a
}
}
return this
}
func (this *myType) setB (b int, _ *error) *myType {
this.b = b
return this
}
And then call it like this:
func main() {
var err error = nil
instance :=
New("hello", &err).
setA(1, &err).
setB(2, &err)
if err != nil {
fmt.Println("Failed: ", err)
} else {
fmt.Println(instance)
}
}
This is similar to the Functional options idiom presented on #Ripounet answer and enjoys the same benefits but has some drawbacks:
If an error occurs it will not abort immediately, thus, it would be slightly less efficient if you expect your constructor to report errors often.
You'll have to spend a line declaring an err variable and zeroing it.
There is, however, a possible small advantage, this type of function calls should be easier for the compiler to inline but I am really not a specialist.
Another possibility would be to use a struct which with a field to indicate whether its valid. The null types from sql such as NullString are convenient. Its nice to not have to define your own type, but in case you need a custom data type you can always follow the same pattern. I think the optional-ness is clear from the function definition and there is minimal extra code or effort.
As an example:
func Foo(bar string, baz sql.NullString){
if !baz.Valid {
baz.String = "defaultValue"
}
// the rest of the implementation
}