Related
What I have many times in different versions in my code:
func f() (bool, bool) {
value, successFulOperation := someStuff()
return value, successFulOperation
}
// somewhere else
value, successfulOperation := f()
if value && successfulOperation {
// do stuff
}
// do stuff should only be executed if value is true AND the operation that retrieved value succeeded without an error. In other words: I don't care about value or successfulOperation. I only care about value && successfulOperation.
A solution I want to avoid (seems verbose):
value, successfulOperation := f()
actualValue := value && successfulOperation
if actualValue {...}
Above code is really simplified. In reality the if conditions will be nested and more complicated.
What I want:
A wrapper for f that combines both values into one. How do I do that? The solution should work for any function taking any parameters and returning two bools.
The following does not work:
type doubleBoolFunc func(...interface{}) (bool, bool)
func and(fn doubleBoolFunc, params ...interface{}) bool {
b1, b2 := fn(params...)
return b1 && b2
}
actualValue := and(f())
You can't write a wrapper function to turn the two bools into one until generics are in the language in go 1.181. Or at least you can, using reflect, but it's a mess.
But you can write this with go 1.17:
func both(x, y bool) bool {
return x && y
}
func f() (bool, bool) {
return true, false
}
func main() {
r := both(f())
fmt.Println(r)
}
But more practical (in my opinion) is to eschew this complication, and use a 1-line if. Not everything needs to be a function or abstracted away:
if a, b := f(); a && b {
...
}
[1] Even when generics are introduced in go 1.18, I don't think there'll be a way to specific a generic type that represents a function with arbitrary arguments that returns two bools.
func and(a, b bool) bool {
return a && b
}
then if f return 2 bool
value := and(f())
will work
To fix the code at the end of your question, don't invoke the function f(), simply reference the function name f and then list its args:
// actualValue := and(f(args...))
actualValue := and(f, args...)
https://go.dev/play/p/KAT2L58ZQy3
I'm trying to implement a default value according to the option 1 of the post Golang and default values. But when I try to do go install the following error pops up in the terminal:
not enough arguments in call to test.Concat1
have ()
want (string)
Code:
package test
func Concat1(a string) string {
if a == "" {
a = "default-a"
}
return fmt.Sprintf("%s", a)
}
// other package
package main
func main() {
test.Concat1()
}
Thanks in advance.
I don't think what you are trying to do will work that way. You may want to opt for option #4 from the page you cited, which uses variadic variables. In your case looks to me like you want just a string, so it'd be something like this:
func Concat1(a ...string) string {
if len(a) == 0 {
return "a-default"
}
return a[0]
}
Go does not have optional defaults for function arguments.
You may emulate them to some extent by having a special type
to contain the set of parameters for a function.
In your toy example that would be something like
type Concat1Args struct {
a string
}
func Concat1(args Concat1Args) string {
if args.a == "" {
args.a = "default-a"
}
return fmt.Sprintf("%s", args.a)
}
The "trick" here is that in Go each type has its respective
"zero value", and when producing a value of a composite type
using the so-called literal, it's possible to initialize only some of the type's fields, so in our example that would be
s := Concat1(Concat1Args{})
vs
s := Concat1(Concat1Args{"whatever"})
I know that looks clumsy, and I have showed this mostly for
demonstration purpose. In real production code, where a function
might have a dozen of parameters or more, having them packed
in a dedicate composite type is usually the only sensible way
to go but for a case like yours it's better to just explicitly
pass "" to the function.
Golang does not support default parameters. Accordingly, variadic arguments by themselves are not analogous. However, variadic functions with the use of error handling can 'resemble' the pattern. Try the following as a simple example:
package main
import (
"errors"
"log"
)
func createSeries(p ...int) ([]int, error) {
usage := "Usage: createSeries(<length>, <optional starting value>), length should be > 0"
if len(p) == 0 {
return nil, errors.New(usage)
}
n := p[0]
if n <= 0 {
return nil, errors.New(usage)
}
var base int
if len(p) == 2 {
base = p[1]
} else if len(p) > 2 {
return nil, errors.New(usage)
}
vals := make([]int, n)
for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
vals[i] = base + i
}
return vals, nil
}
func main() {
answer, err := createSeries(4, -9)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
log.Println(answer)
}
Default parameters work differently in Go than they do in other languages. In a function there can be one ellipsis, always at the end, which will keep a slice of values of the same type so in your case this would be:
func Concat1(a ...string) string {
but that means that the caller may pass in any number of arguments >= 0. Also you need to check that the arguments in the slice are not empty and then assign them yourself. This means they do not get assigned a default value through any kind of special syntax in Go. This is not possible but you can do
if a[0] == "" {
a[0] = "default value"
}
If you want to make sure that the user passes either zero or one strings, just create two functions in your API, e.g.
func Concat(a string) string { // ...
func ConcatDefault() string {
Concat("default value")
}
I can't find why below code gives compile error "alive declared and not used".
func ping(ip string) {
var alive bool
_, err := exec.Command("ping", "-n 1", "-w 1000", ip).Output()
if err != nil {
alive = false
} else {
alive = true
}
}
The compile error you're seeing is exactly what is happening. That var alive bool is unused. You declare it and assign a value to it but you never do anything with it.
Here is a playground-friendly modification of your code that will run:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"strconv"
)
func main() {
fmt.Println(isInt("Hello, playground")) // prints false
fmt.Println(isInt("1234567890")) // prints true
}
func isInt(s string) bool {
var alive bool
_, err := strconv.Atoi(s) // simply to demonstrate an error case
if err != nil {
alive = false
} else {
alive = true
}
return alive
}
Notice that I return alive. The function is useless and not something I would suggest in and of itself but it should help illustrate what is missing in your example.
Since it is a local variable, it will exit scope at the end of the function. alive is neither evaluated nor returned inside the function. Hence the compiler complains.
Those strange limitations in Golang Devs team heads are terribly annoying.
Why not to allow people to disable their limitations with options?
Answer is simple: they write the lang for themselves (for guugle), not for the community.
Fortunately, Go is OpenSource and even written in Go.
So, here is a simple patch removing the "declared and not used" or "declared but not used" errors raising:
diff --git a/src/cmd/compile/internal/gc/walk.go b/src/cmd/compile/internal/gc/walk.go
index 770210f..78c0cbc 100644
--- a/src/cmd/compile/internal/gc/walk.go
+++ b/src/cmd/compile/internal/gc/walk.go
## -49,10 +49,7 ## func walk(fn *Node) {
if defn.Left.Name.Used() {
continue
}
- yyerrorl(defn.Left.Pos, "%v declared and not used", ln.Sym)
defn.Left.Name.SetUsed(true) // suppress repeats
- } else {
- yyerrorl(ln.Pos, "%v declared and not used", ln.Sym)
}
}
diff --git a/src/go/types/stmt.go b/src/go/types/stmt.go
index abd9d05..8b15786 100644
--- a/src/go/types/stmt.go
+++ b/src/go/types/stmt.go
## -55,6 +55,7 ## func (check *Checker) funcBody(decl *declInfo, name string, sig *Signature, body
}
func (check *Checker) usage(scope *Scope) {
+ return
var unused []*Var
for _, elem := range scope.elems {
if v, _ := elem.(*Var); v != nil && !v.used {
(Actual for go1.12)
Unpack a fresh Golang into /usr/local/go and apply the patch.
Then compile:
export GOROOT_BOOTSTRAP=/usr/local/go2
cp -a /usr/local/go /usr/local/go2
cd /usr/local/go/src
sed -e 's#^bash run.bash.*##' -i all.bash
./all.bash
rm -rf /usr/local/go2
unset GOROOT_BOOTSTRAP
It's much faster to apply the patch once [per new version] than every time deal with every missed variable.
This question already has answers here:
What is the idiomatic Go equivalent of C's ternary operator?
(14 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
Please see https://golangdocs.com/ternary-operator-in-golang as pointed by #accdias (see comments)
Can I write a simple if-else statement with variable assignment in go (golang) as I would do in php? For example:
$var = ( $a > $b )? $a: $b;
Currently I have to use the following:
var c int
if a > b {
c = a
} else {
c = b
}
Sorry I cannot remember the name if this control statement and I couldn't find the info in-site or through google search. :/
As the comments mentioned, Go doesn't support ternary one liners. The shortest form I can think of is this:
var c int
if c = b; a > b {
c = a
}
But please don't do that, it's not worth it and will only confuse people who read your code.
As the others mentioned, Go does not support ternary one-liners. However, I wrote a utility function that could help you achieve what you want.
// IfThenElse evaluates a condition, if true returns the first parameter otherwise the second
func IfThenElse(condition bool, a interface{}, b interface{}) interface{} {
if condition {
return a
}
return b
}
Here are some test cases to show how you can use it
func TestIfThenElse(t *testing.T) {
assert.Equal(t, IfThenElse(1 == 1, "Yes", false), "Yes")
assert.Equal(t, IfThenElse(1 != 1, nil, 1), 1)
assert.Equal(t, IfThenElse(1 < 2, nil, "No"), nil)
}
For fun, I wrote more useful utility functions such as:
IfThen(1 == 1, "Yes") // "Yes"
IfThen(1 != 1, "Woo") // nil
IfThen(1 < 2, "Less") // "Less"
IfThenElse(1 == 1, "Yes", false) // "Yes"
IfThenElse(1 != 1, nil, 1) // 1
IfThenElse(1 < 2, nil, "No") // nil
DefaultIfNil(nil, nil) // nil
DefaultIfNil(nil, "") // ""
DefaultIfNil("A", "B") // "A"
DefaultIfNil(true, "B") // true
DefaultIfNil(1, false) // 1
FirstNonNil(nil, nil) // nil
FirstNonNil(nil, "") // ""
FirstNonNil("A", "B") // "A"
FirstNonNil(true, "B") // true
FirstNonNil(1, false) // 1
FirstNonNil(nil, nil, nil, 10) // 10
FirstNonNil(nil, nil, nil, nil, nil) // nil
FirstNonNil() // nil
If you would like to use any of these, you can find them here https://github.com/shomali11/util
I often use the following:
c := b
if a > b {
c = a
}
basically the same as #Not_a_Golfer's but using type inference.
Thanks for pointing toward the correct answer.
I have just checked the Golang FAQ (duh) and it clearly states, this is not available in the language:
Does Go have the ?: operator?
There is no ternary form in Go. You may use the following to achieve the same result:
if expr {
n = trueVal
} else {
n = falseVal
}
additional info found that might be of interest on the subject:
Rosetta Code for Conditional Structures in Go
Ternary Operator in Go experiment from this guy
One possible way to do this in just one line by using a map, simple I am checking whether a > b if it is true I am assigning c to a otherwise b
c := map[bool]int{true: a, false: b}[a > b]
However, this looks amazing but in some cases it might NOT be the perfect solution because of evaluation order. For example, if I am checking whether an object is not nil get some property out of it, look at the following code snippet which will panic in case of myObj equals nil
type MyStruct struct {
field1 string
field2 string
}
var myObj *MyStruct
myObj = nil
myField := map[bool]string{true: myObj.field1, false: "empty!"}[myObj != nil}
Because map will be created and built first before evaluating the condition so in case of myObj = nil this will simply panic.
Not to forget to mention that you can still do the conditions in just one simple line, check the following:
var c int
...
if a > b { c = a } else { c = b}
A very similar construction is available in the language
**if <statement>; <evaluation> {
[statements ...]
} else {
[statements ...]
}*
*
i.e.
if path,err := os.Executable(); err != nil {
log.Println(err)
} else {
log.Println(path)
}
Use lambda function instead of ternary operator
Example 1
to give the max int
package main
func main() {
println( func(a,b int) int {if a>b {return a} else {return b} }(1,2) )
}
Example 2
Suppose you have this must(err error) function to handle errors and you want to use it when a condition isn't fulfilled.
(enjoy at https://play.golang.com/p/COXyo0qIslP)
package main
import (
"errors"
"log"
"os"
)
// must is a little helper to handle errors. If passed error != nil, it simply panics.
func must(err error) {
if err != nil {
log.Println(err)
panic(err)
}
}
func main() {
tmpDir := os.TempDir()
// Make sure os.TempDir didn't return empty string
// reusing my favourite `must` helper
// Isn't that kinda creepy now though?
must(func() error {
var err error
if len(tmpDir) > 0 {
err = nil
} else {
err = errors.New("os.TempDir is empty")
}
return err
}()) // Don't forget that empty parentheses to invoke the lambda.
println("We happy with", tmpDir)
}
Sometimes, I try to use anonymous function to achieve defining and assigning happen at the same line. like below:
a, b = 4, 8
c := func() int {
if a >b {
return a
}
return b
} ()
https://play.golang.org/p/rMjqytMYeQ0
Like user2680100 said, in Golang you can have the structure:
if <statement>; <evaluation> {
[statements ...]
} else {
[statements ...]
}
This is useful to shortcut some expressions that need error checking, or another kind of boolean checking, like:
var number int64
if v := os.Getenv("NUMBER"); v != "" {
if number, err = strconv.ParseInt(v, 10, 64); err != nil {
os.Exit(42)
}
} else {
os.Exit(1)
}
With this you can achieve something like (in C):
Sprite *buffer = get_sprite("foo.png");
Sprite *foo_sprite = (buffer != 0) ? buffer : donut_sprite
But is evident that this sugar in Golang have to be used with moderation, for me, personally, I like to use this sugar with max of one level of nesting, like:
var number int64
if v := os.Getenv("NUMBER"); v != "" {
number, err = strconv.ParseInt(v, 10, 64)
if err != nil {
os.Exit(42)
}
} else {
os.Exit(1)
}
You can also implement ternary expressions with functions like func Ternary(b bool, a interface{}, b interface{}) { ... } but i don't like this approach, looks like a creation of a exception case in syntax, and creation of this "features", in my personal opinion, reduce the focus on that matters, that is algorithm and readability, but, the most important thing that makes me don't go for this way is that fact that this can bring a kind of overhead, and bring more cycles to in your program execution.
You can use a closure for this:
func doif(b bool, f1, f2 func()) {
switch{
case b:
f1()
case !b:
f2()
}
}
func dothis() { fmt.Println("Condition is true") }
func dothat() { fmt.Println("Condition is false") }
func main () {
condition := true
doif(condition, func() { dothis() }, func() { dothat() })
}
The only gripe I have with the closure syntax in Go is there is no alias for the default zero parameter zero return function, then it would be much nicer (think like how you declare map, array and slice literals with just a type name).
Or even the shorter version, as a commenter just suggested:
func doif(b bool, f1, f2 func()) {
switch{
case b:
f1()
case !b:
f2()
}
}
func dothis() { fmt.Println("Condition is true") }
func dothat() { fmt.Println("Condition is false") }
func main () {
condition := true
doif(condition, dothis, dothat)
}
You would still need to use a closure if you needed to give parameters to the functions. This could be obviated in the case of passing methods rather than just functions I think, where the parameters are the struct associated with the methods.
As everyone else pointed out, there's no ternary operator in Go.
For your particular example though, if you want to use a single liner, you could use Max.
import "math"
...
c := math.Max(a, b)
Ternary ? operator alternatives | golang if else one line
You can’t write a short one-line conditional in Go language ; there is no ternary conditional operator.
Read more about if..else of Golang
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
}