I came a cross a piece of code that used .(string) method. Not knowing what this is called I had difficulties searching for it.
Here is my try to understand it:
package main
import "fmt"
import "reflect"
func main(){
var b interface{}
b = "silly"
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(b.(string))) // we know that b
// is a string
// at compile time
fmt.Println(reflect.TypeOf(b)) // we do not
}
Result:
string
string
However, I think that reflect.TypeOf takes place at run time, while .(string) would tell the compiler that b is indeed a string, and this could be used to tell the compiler that a variable is of certain type. Is my understanding right?
goplayground
b.(string) is called a type assertion. As written in Effective Go:
A type assertion takes an interface value and extracts from it a value of the specified explicit type.
So, yes, the value you get from a type assertion is not an interface value, but is of the explicit type. You can also test if the type assertion was successful by adding an untyped boolean value:
s, ok := b.(string) // s is of type string
if !ok {
// b did not contain a value of type string!
}
Edit:
To explain further to clear out any possible misunderstanding:
A type assertion doesn't "tell Go that b is a string" as you suggested. What it does is that it will, in run time, try to extract a string from b, and panic if b contains some other type (unless assigning the optional bool value).
The value that you get from the assertion will indeed be of type string, allowing you to do things like slicing (you cannot slice an interface value) or checking its len.
The previous answer is correct. But I submit this as more like what happens in practice. The .(type) syntax is usually used with type names in the cases of a switch. In this example, I (integer expr), B (bool expr), and Bop (binary op) are type names.
func commute (e Expr) (r Expr, d bool) {
switch exp:= e.(type) {
case I: r,d = exp,false
case B: r,d = exp,false
case Bop: r,d = Bop{exp.op, exp.right, exp.left},true
default: r,d = e,false
}
return
}
This isn't unsafe like a C cast, because inside the case statement you are guaranteed to have the matching type. I see this quite a bit when reading a channel, where the type of the channel is an interface that all the cases implement.
Related
I'm looking for a way to declare type compatibility between type parameters in Go generics constraints.
More specifically, I need to say some type T is compatible with another type U. For instance, T is a pointer to a struct that implements the interface U.
Below is a concrete example of what I want to accomplish:
NOTE: Please, do not answer with alternative ways to implement "array prepend". I've only used it as a concrete application of the problem I'm looking to solve. Focusing on the specific example digresses the conversation.
func Prepend[T any](array []T, values ...T) []T {
if len(values) < 1 { return array }
result := make([]T, len(values) + len(array))
copy(result, values)
copy(result[len(values):], array)
return result
}
The above function can be called to append elements of a given type T to an array of the same type, so the code below works just fine:
type Foo struct{ x int }
func (self *Foo) String() string { return fmt.Sprintf("foo#%d", self.x) }
func grow(array []*Foo) []*Foo {
return Prepend(array, &Foo{x: len(array)})
}
If the array type is different than the elements being added (say, an interface implemented by the elements' type), the code fails to compile (as expected) with type *Foo of &Foo{…} does not match inferred type Base for T:
type Base interface { fmt.Stringer }
type Foo struct{ x int }
func (self *Foo) String() string { return fmt.Sprintf("foo#%d", self.x) }
func grow(array []Base) []Base {
return Prepend(array, &Foo{x: len(array)})
}
The intuitive solution to that is to change the type parameters for Prepend so that array and values have different, but compatible types. That's the part I don't know how to express in Go.
For instance, the code below doesn't work (as expected) because the types of array and values are independent of each other. Similar code would work with C++ templates since the compatibility is validated after template instantiation (similar to duck typing). The Go compiler gives out the error invalid argument: arguments to copy result (variable of type []A) and values (variable of type []T) have different element types A and T:
func Prepend[A any, T any](array []A, values ...T) []A {
if len(values) < 1 { return array }
result := make([]A, len(values) + len(array))
copy(result, values)
copy(result[len(values):], array)
return result
}
I've tried making the type T compatible with A with the constraint ~A, but Go doesn't like a type parameter used as type of a constraint, giving out the error type in term ~A cannot be a type parameter:
func Prepend[A any, T ~A](array []A, values ...T) []A {
What's the proper way to declare this type compatibility as generics constraints without resorting to reflection?
This is a limitation of Go's type parameter inference, which is the system that tries to automatically insert type parameters in cases where you don't define them explicitly. Try adding in the type parameter explicitly, and you'll see that it works. For example:
// This works.
func grow(array []Base) []Base {
return Prepend[Base](array, &Foo{x: len(array)})
}
You can also try explicitly converting the *Foo value to a Base interface. For example:
// This works too.
func grow(array []Base) []Base {
return Prepend(array, Base(&Foo{x: len(array)}))
}
Explanation
First, you should bear in mind that the "proper" use of type parameters is to always include them explicitly. The option to omit the type parameter list is considered a "nice to have", but not intended to cover all use cases.
From the blog post An Introduction To Generics:
Type inference in practice
The exact details of how type inference works are complicated, but using it is not: type inference either succeeds or fails. If it succeeds, type arguments can be omitted, and calling generic functions looks no different than calling ordinary functions. If type inference fails, the compiler will give an error message, and in those cases we can just provide the necessary type arguments.
In adding type inference to the language we’ve tried to strike a balance between inference power and complexity. We want to ensure that when the compiler infers types, those types are never surprising. We’ve tried to be careful to err on the side of failing to infer a type rather than on the side of inferring the wrong type. We probably have not gotten it entirely right, and we may continue to refine it in future releases. The effect will be that more programs can be written without explicit type arguments. Programs that don’t need type arguments today won’t need them tomorrow either.
In other words, type inference may improve over time, but you should expect it to be limited.
In this case:
// This works.
func grow(array []*Foo) []*Foo {
return Prepend(array, &Foo{x: len(array)})
}
It is relatively simple for the compiler to match that the argument types of []*Foo and *Foo match the pattern []T and ...T by substitutingT = *Foo.
So why does the plain solution you gave first not work?
// Why does this not work?
func grow(array []Base) []Base {
return Prepend(array, &Foo{x: len(array)})
}
To make []Base and *Foo match the pattern []T and ...T, just substituting T = *Foo or T = Base provides no apparent match. You have to apply the rule that *Foo is assignable to the type Base to see that T = Base works. Apparently the inference system doesn't go the extra mile to try to figure that out, so it fails here.
With Golangs new generics we have the tilde operator ~ which will match the underlying type. In what case is it valid to NOT match the underlying type? I'm trying to understand why the current behavior with the tilde is not the default behavior. It seems unnecessary to support both.
For example, why would you write
interface { int }
and not
interface { ~int }
What benefit to you would it be to write a method that is so strict that it could not accept something like
type MyInt int
Why is the tilde behavior not the default, and thus the language would not require another operator?
Not using the ~ operator means you only accept the listed exact types. Why should this matter?
You may want to use the values of the exact types to set to other variables and else type conversion would be required. And because the saying goes "new type, new method set". New types having the same underlying type have their own method sets.
You may want the "original" behavior of the value, which may change if it has a different method set.
For example, let's say you want to print the number like this:
type Num interface{ ~int }
func foo[T Num](v T) {
fmt.Println(v)
}
If MyInt has a String() string method:
type MyInt int
func (m MyInt) String() string { return "bar" }
The output might not be what foo() would want, because the fmt package checks if a printed value has a String() string method, and if so, it is called to acquire its string representation:
foo(1)
foo(MyInt(1))
This will output (try it on the Go Playground):
1
bar
If you only allow int:
type Num interface{ int }
You can still call foo() with a value of type MyInt, using a type conversion:
foo(1)
x := MyInt(1)
foo(int(x))
And output will be what foo() wants, not what MyInt would want (try this one on the Go Playground):
1
1
Yes, this would also be possible if foo() itself would do the conversion, but this clearly documents you want a pure int, with int's behavior, and not something that is an int with a different, custom behavior.
Why is the tilde behavior not the default
Because it would be confusing and semantically unsound to write a function like func Foo[T int](v T) that accepts type parameters that are not int. Then the meaning of int in interface constraints would not be the same as everywhere else. (More on this discussion)
What benefit to you would it be to write a method that is so strict [...]
Indeed if the constraint includes only one exact type, using type parameters is moot. If the type set of the constraint has cardinality 1, you should just remove the type parameter.
A function like:
func Foo[T int](v T)
can only ever be instantiated with exactly int, so it can (and should!) be simply written with regular arguments:
func Foo(v int)
When the type set cardinality is N, which includes single tilde types, but also unions, makes it basically impossible to write exhaustive type switch, since using ~ in case statements is not allowed (yet?):
func Foo[T ~int | ~string](v T) {
switch t := any(v).(type) {
case int: // ok
case string: // ok
// how to match other possible types then?
}
}
In this particular case, an exhaustive type switch can be written only if the constraint includes exact types:
func Foo[T int | string](v T) {
switch t := any(v).(type) {
case int: // ok
case string: // ok
default:
panic("should not occur")
}
}
This should not arise frequently in practice: if you find yourself switching on the type parameter, you should ask yourself if the function really needs to be generic. However the use case is relevant when designing your code.
Why is the tilde behavior not the default, and thus the language would not require another operator?
Because if the approximation would be the default unconditionally you could not express the fact that your polymorphic function requires an int and not a MyInt. You would then have to introduce an operator like strict and write %int. Nothing gained.
Sorry for the ambiguous title. I'm not getting a compiler error when I believe that I should, based on creating a new type and a function that takes an argument of that type.
The example:
package search
//Some random type alias
type Search string
//Takes a string and returns Search
func NewSearch(s string) Search {
return Search(s)
}
//This is where things are getting weird
//Returns an int just for arbitrary testing
func PrintSearch(s Search) int{
return 5
}
Now my assumption would be, if I created an object using NewSearch, I would be able to pass it to PrintSearch and have everything run as expected, but if I passed PrintSearch a primitive string, it should not compile. I am not experiencing this behavior.
The main code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
".../search" //no need to type the whole path here
)
func main() {
SearchTerm := search.NewSearch("Test")
StringTerm := "Another test"
fmt.Println(search.PrintSearch(SearchTerm)) // This should print 5
fmt.Println(search.PrintSearch(StringTerm)) // This should throw a compiler error, but it is not
}
It seems like if I write the type and the function in the same package as main, everything works as I'd expect? As in, it throws a compiler error. Is there something I've missed about cross-package type coercion?
We can simplify this example a bit further (playground):
package main
type Foo string
type Bar int
func main() {
var f Foo = "foo"
var b Bar = 1
println(f, b)
}
This is explained in the spec's assignability section.
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.
I'm new to interfaces and trying to do SOAP request by github
I don't understand the meaning of
Msg interface{}
in this code:
type Envelope struct {
Body `xml:"soap:"`
}
type Body struct {
Msg interface{}
}
I've observed the same syntax in
fmt.Println
but don't understand what's being achieved by
interface{}
Note: Go 1.18 (Q1 2022) does rename interface{} to any (alias for interface{}).
See issue 49884, CL 368254 and commit 2580d0e.
See the last part of this answer.
You can refer to the article "How to use interfaces in Go" (based on "Russ Cox’s description of interfaces"):
What is an interface?
An interface is two things:
it is a set of methods,
but it is also a type
The interface{} type (or any with Go 1.18+), the empty interface is the interface that has no methods.
Since there is no implements keyword, all types implement at least zero methods, and satisfying an interface is done automatically, all types satisfy the empty interface.
That means that if you write a function that takes an interface{} value as a parameter, you can supply that function with any value.
(That is what Msg represents in your question: any value)
func DoSomething(v interface{}) {
// ...
}
func DoSomething(v any) {
// ...
}
Here’s where it gets confusing:
inside of the DoSomething function, what is v's type?
Beginner gophers are led to believe that “v is of any type”, but that is wrong.
v is not of any type; it is of interface{} type.
When passing a value into the DoSomething function, the Go runtime will perform a type conversion (if necessary), and convert the value to an interface{} value.
All values have exactly one type at runtime, and v's one static type is interface{} (or any with Go 1.18+).
An interface value is constructed of two words of data:
one word is used to point to a method table for the value’s underlying type,
and the other word is used to point to the actual data being held by that value.
Addendum: This is were Russ's article is quite complete regarding an interface structure:
type Stringer interface {
String() string
}
Interface values are represented as a two-word pair giving a pointer to information about the type stored in the interface and a pointer to the associated data.
Assigning b to an interface value of type Stringer sets both words of the interface value.
The first word in the interface value points at what I call an interface table or itable (pronounced i-table; in the runtime sources, the C implementation name is Itab).
The itable begins with some metadata about the types involved and then becomes a list of function pointers.
Note that the itable corresponds to the interface type, not the dynamic type.
In terms of our example, the itable for Stringer holding type Binary lists the methods used to satisfy Stringer, which is just String: Binary's other methods (Get) make no appearance in the itable.
The second word in the interface value points at the actual data, in this case a copy of b.
The assignment var s Stringer = b makes a copy of b rather than point at b for the same reason that var c uint64 = b makes a copy: if b later changes, s and c are supposed to have the original value, not the new one.
Values stored in interfaces might be arbitrarily large, but only one word is dedicated to holding the value in the interface structure, so the assignment allocates a chunk of memory on the heap and records the pointer in the one-word slot.
Issue 33232 seems to point out to any as an alias to interface{} in Go 1.18 (Q1 2022)
Russ Cox explains:
'any' being only for constraints is a detail that will be in every writeup of generics - books, blog posts, and so on.
If we think we are likely to allow it eventually, it makes sense to allow it from the start and avoid invalidating all that written material.
'any' being only for constraints is an unexpected cut-out that reduces generality and orthogonality of concepts.
It's easy to say "let's just wait and see", but prescribing uses tends to create much more jagged features than full generality. We saw this with type aliases as well (and resisted almost all the proposed cut-outs, thankfully).
If 'any' is allowed in generics but not non-generic code, then it might encourage people to overuse generics simply because 'any' is nicer to write than 'interface{}', when the decision about generics or not should really be made by considering other factors.
If we allow 'any' for ordinary non-generic usage too, then seeing interface{} in code could serve as a kind of signal that the code predates generics and has not yet been reconsidered in the post-generics world.
Some code using interface{} should use generics. Other code should continue to use interfaces.
Rewriting it one way or another to remove the text 'interface{}' would give people a clear way to see what they'd updated and hadn't. (Of course, some code that might be better with generics must still use interface{} for backwards-compatibility reasons, but it can still be updated to confirm that the decision was considered and made.)
That thread also includes an explanation about interface{}:
It's not a special design, but a logical consequence of Go's type declaration syntax.
You can use anonymous interfaces with more than zero methods:
func f(a interface{Foo(); Bar()}) {
a.Foo()
a.Bar()
}
Analogous to how you can use anonymous structs anywhere a type is expected:
func f(a struct{Foo int; Bar string}) {
fmt.Println(a.Foo)
fmt.Println(a.Bar)
}
An empty interface just happens to match all types because all types have at least zero methods.
Removing interface{} would mean removing all interface functionality from the language if you want to stay consistent / don't want to introduce a special case.
interface{} means you can put value of any type, including your own custom type. All types in Go satisfy an empty interface (interface{} is an empty interface).
In your example, Msg field can have value of any type.
Example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type Body struct {
Msg interface{}
}
func main() {
b := Body{}
b.Msg = "5"
fmt.Printf("%#v %T \n", b.Msg, b.Msg) // Output: "5" string
b.Msg = 5
fmt.Printf("%#v %T", b.Msg, b.Msg) //Output: 5 int
}
Go Playground
There are already good answers here. Let me add my own too for others who want to understand it intuitively:
Interface
Here's an interface with one method:
type Runner interface {
Run()
}
So any type that has a Run() method satisfies the Runner interface:
type Program struct {
/* fields */
}
func (p Program) Run() {
/* running */
}
func (p Program) Stop() {
/* stopping */
}
Although the Program type has also a Stop method, it still satisfies the Runner interface because all that is needed is to have all of the methods of an interface to satisfy it.
So, it has a Run method and it satisfies the Runner interface.
Empty Interface
Here's a named empty interface without any methods:
type Empty interface {
/* it has no methods */
}
So any type satisfies this interface. Because, no method is needed to satisfy this interface. For example:
// Because, Empty interface has no methods, following types satisfy the Empty interface
var a Empty
a = 5
a = 6.5
a = "hello"
But, does the Program type above satisfy it? Yes:
a = Program{} // ok
interface{} is equal to the Empty interface above.
var b interface{}
// true: a == b
b = a
b = 9
b = "bye"
As you see, there's nothing mysterious about it but it's very easy to abuse. Stay away from it as much as you can.
https://play.golang.org/p/A-vwTddWJ7G
It's called the empty interface and is implemented by all types, which means you can put anything in the Msg field.
Example :
body := Body{3}
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", body) // -> main.Body{Msg:3}
body = Body{"anything"}
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", body) // -> main.Body{Msg:"anything"}
body = Body{body}
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", body) // -> main.Body{Msg:main.Body{Msg:"anything"}}
This is the logical extension of the fact that a type implements an interface as soon as it has all methods of the interface.
From the Golang Specifications:
An interface type specifies a method set called its interface. A
variable of interface type can store a value of any type with a method
set that is any superset of the interface. Such a type is said to
implement the interface. The value of an uninitialized variable of
interface type is nil.
A type implements any interface comprising any subset of its methods
and may therefore implement several distinct interfaces. For instance,
all types implement the empty interface:
interface{}
The concepts to graps are:
Everything has a Type. You can define a new type, let's call it T. Let's say now our Type T has 3 methods: A, B, C.
The set of methods specified for a type is called the "interface type". Let's call it in our example: T_interface. Is equal to T_interface = (A, B, C)
You can create an "interface type" by defining the signature of the methods. MyInterface = (A, )
When you specify a variable of type, "interface type", you can assign to it only types which have an interface that is a superset of your interface.
That means that all the methods contained in MyInterface have to be contained inside T_interface
You can deduce that all the "interface types" of all the types are a superset of the empty interface.
An example that extends the excellent answer by #VonC and the comment by #NickCraig-Wood. interface{} can point to anything and you need a cast/type assertion to use it.
package main
import (
. "fmt"
"strconv"
)
var c = cat("Fish")
var d = dog("Bone")
func main() {
var i interface{} = c
switch i.(type) {
case cat:
c.Eat() // Fish
}
i = d
switch i.(type) {
case dog:
d.Eat() // Bone
}
i = "4.3"
Printf("%T %v\n", i, i) // string 4.3
s, _ := i.(string) // type assertion
f, _ := strconv.ParseFloat(s, 64)
n := int(f) // type conversion
Printf("%T %v\n", n, n) // int 4
}
type cat string
type dog string
func (c cat) Eat() { Println(c) }
func (d dog) Eat() { Println(d) }
i is a variable of an empty interface with a value cat("Fish"). It is legal to create a method value from a value of interface type. See https://golang.org/ref/spec#Interface_types.
A type switch confirms i interface type is cat("Fish") . See https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#type_switch. i is then reassigned to dog("Bone"). A type switch confirms that i interface’s type has changed to dog("Bone") .
You can also ask the compiler to check that the type T implements the interface I by attempting an assignment: var _ I = T{}. See https://golang.org/doc/faq#guarantee_satisfies_interface and https://stackoverflow.com/a/60663003/12817546.
All types implement the empty interface interface{}. See https://talks.golang.org/2012/goforc.slide#44 and https://golang.org/ref/spec#Interface_types . In this example, i is reassigned, this time to a string "4.3".i is then assigned to a new string variable s with i.(string) before s is converted to a float64 type f using strconv. Finally f is converted to n an int type equal to 4. See What is the difference between type conversion and type assertion?
Go's built-in maps and slices, plus the ability to use the empty interface to construct containers (with explicit unboxing) mean in many cases it is possible to write code that does what generics would enable, if less smoothly. See https://golang.org/doc/faq#generics.
Interface is a type which is unknown at compile time
It is a contract between object and the struct type to satisfy with common functionality
or
common functionality acting on different types of struct objects
for example in the below code PrintDetails is a common functionality acting on different types of structs as Engineer,Manager,
Seniorhead
please find the example code
interface examplehttps://play.golang.org/p/QnAqEYGiiF7
A method can bind to any type(int, string, pointer, and so on) in GO
Interface is a way of declear what method one type should have, as long as A type has implement those methods, this can be assigned to this interface.
Interface{} just has no declear of method, so it can accept any type
The code below produces undesirable
[20010101 20010102].
When uncommenting the String func it produces better (but not my implementation):
[{20010101 1.5} {20010102 2.5}]
However that String func is never called.
I see that Date in DateValue is anonymous and therefore func (Date) String is being used by DateValue.
So my questions are:
1) Is this a language issue, a fmt.Println implementation issue, or
something else? Note: if I switch from:
func (*DateValue) String() string
to
func (DateValue) String() string
my function is at least called and panic ensues. So if I really want my method called I could do that, but assume DateValue is really a very large object which I only want to pass by reference.
2) What is a good strategy for mixing anonymous fields with
functionality like Stringer and json encoding that use reflection
under the covers? For example adding a String or MarshalJSON method
for a type that happens to be used as an anonymous field can cause
strange behavior (like you only print or encode part of the whole).
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
)
type Date int64
func (d Date) String() string {
t := time.Unix(int64(d),0).UTC()
return fmt.Sprintf("%04d%02d%02d", t.Year(), int(t.Month()), t.Day())
}
type DateValue struct {
Date
Value float64
}
type OrderedValues []DateValue
/*
// ADD THIS BACK and note that this is never called but both pieces of
// DateValue are printed, whereas, without this only the date is printed
func (dv *DateValue) String() string {
panic("Oops")
return fmt.Sprintf("DV(%s,%f)", dv.Date, dv.Value )
}
*/
func main() {
d1, d2 := Date(978307200),Date(978307200+24*60*60)
ov1 := OrderedValues{{ d1, 1.5 }, { d2, 2.5 }}
fmt.Println(ov1)
}
It's because you've passed in a slice of DateValues and not DateValue pointers. Since you've defined the String method for *DataValue, *DateValue is what fulfills the Stringer interface. This also prevents DateValue from fulfilling the Stringer interface via its anonymous Date member, because only one of either the value type (DateValue) or the pointer type (*DateValue) can be used to fulfill an interface. So, when fmt.Println is printing the contents of the slice, it sees that the elements are not Stringers, and uses the default struct formatting instead of the method you defined, giving [{20010101 1.5} {20010102 2.5}].
You can either make OrderedValues a []*DateValue or define func (dv DateValue) String() string instead of the pointer version.
Based on what #SteveM said, I distilled it to a simpler test case:
package main
import "fmt"
type Fooable interface {
Foo()
}
type A int
func (a A) Foo() { }
type B struct {
A
}
// Uncomment the following method and it will print false
//func (b *B) Foo() { }
func main() {
var x interface{} = B{}
_, ok := x.(Fooable)
fmt.Println(ok) // prints true
}
In other words, the Foo method is not part of the method set of B when the Foo method for *B is defined.
From reading the spec, I don't see a clear explanation of what is happening. The closest part seems to be in the section on selectors:
For a value x of type T or *T where T is not an interface type, x.f
denotes the field or method at the shallowest depth in T where there
is such an f.
The only way I can see this explaining what is going on is if when it is looking for a method Foo at shallowest depth in B, it takes into consideration the methods for *B too, for some reason (even though we are considering type B not *B); and the Foo in *B is indeed shallower than the Foo in A, so it takes that one as the candidate; and then it sees that that Foo doesn't work, since it's in *B and not B, so it gets rid of Foo altogether (even though there is a valid one inherited from A).
If this is indeed what is going on, then I agree with the OP in that this is very counter-intuitive that adding a method to *B would have the reverse consequence of removing a method from B.
Maybe someone more familiar with Go can clarify this.