what is the purpose of defining new types in go:
type NewType OldType
since NewType have only methods declarations, so:
var x NewType
can store also OldType 'objects'. Are there any advantages?
The reason behind naming types in general is fairly straightforward, and is much the same in most languages - being able to name complex types, like:
type Person struct{
name String
age uint8
}
However, naming a type like you described, which I'll call "type aliasing" (not sure if this is used by anyone else, but it's the term I tend to use), doesn't give you the above-mentioned advantage. What it does give you, however, is the ability to add methods to existing types. Go disallows you from adding methods to existing types that you did not define yourself (ie, built-in types or types defined in other packages), so aliasing allows you to pretend that you did define them yourself, and thus add methods to them. Another good way to think about it is like a much more concise version of creating a wrapper type (as you would in an OO language like Java, for example).
So, let's say that I wanted to be able use integers as errors. In Go, the error interface simply requires a method called "Error" which returns a string. Using type aliasing, I could do:
type errorCode int
func (e errorCode) Error() string {
return fmt.Sprintf("%d", e)
}
...and I could use integer error codes. By contrast, if I tried the following, I would get an error:
func (e int) Error() string {
return fmt.Sprintf("%d", e)
}
To demonstrate, check out this implementation:
http://play.golang.org/p/9NO6Lcdsbq
Just to clarify (because my use of the word "alias" may be misleading), two types which are otherwise equivalent (for example, int and errorCode in the above example) are not interchangeable. The Go type system treats them as fundamentally different types, although you may be able to type-cast between them.
The Go Programming Language Specification
Types
A type determines the set of values and operations specific to values
of that type.
You want identify a specific set of values and operations.
For example,
package main
import "fmt"
type Coordinate float64
type Point struct {
x, y Coordinate
}
func (p *Point) Move(dx, dy Coordinate) {
p.x += dx
p.y += dy
}
func main() {
var p = Point{3.14159, 2.718}
fmt.Println(p)
p.Move(-1, +1)
fmt.Println(p)
}
Output:
{3.14159 2.718}
{2.14159 3.718}
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.
I have a function which takes an interface, like this:
func method(data interface{})
.. because I need to process different structs which have common fields/methods. In this function I use data tens or hundreds of times, in different places. It's really unpleasant to add switch a.(type) { case .. case .. all the time.
Is there a way to create a variable with just one switch with needed type and then just use this variable everywhere later? Something like:
var a .... // something here
switch data.(type) {
case *Struct1:
a = data.(*Struct1)
case *Struct2:
a = data.(*Struct2)
}
// Continue with 'a' only
a.Param = 15
fmt.Println(a.String())
Go is a statically typed language, the type of a must be known at compile time. And since Go does not support generics yet, you can't do what you want.
Try to come up with some other solution, e.g. abstract away the things you want to do with a into an interface, and have the concrete types implement that interface. Then a can be a variable of this interface type, and you can call methods of it.
If you can achieve this, actually you can even change the parameter of the data type to this interface, and no type assertion or type switch is needed.
Alternatively you could use reflection to access common fields (either for get or set) identified by their name, but reflection provides no compile-time guarantee, and it's usually less efficient. For an example how to do that, see this question: Assert interface to its type
You can't do what you ask for in your question directly, go is statically typed, so you can't have one variable that can hold different types, and still access that variable as if it is typed.
If you're only working on the common struct fields in your method, you are perhaps better off gathering all the common variables in its own struct, illustrated below as the commons struct and have your method take that type as an argument
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type commons struct {
name string
age int
}
type structA struct {
commons
other_stuff int
}
type structB struct {
commons
foo string
}
func method(c* commons) {
fmt.Println(c)
c.age +=1
}
func main() {
a := structA{commons{"foo", 44}, 1}
b := structB{commons{"bar", 33}, "test"}
method(&a.commons)
method(&b.commons)
fmt.Println(a)
}
Go playground
I can't figure out what is your real goal but if the "method" you want to write handles common fields from similar structures, and you cannot fix original structures using Type Embedding, as #nos said above, then you can try to make another structure for method-internal use:
var v Vehicle // with common fields
switch data.(type) {
case *Car:
v.Handle = data.(*Car).Handle // or CircleHandle
case *Motorcycle:
v.Handle = data.(*Motorcycle).Handle // or BarHandle
}
v.Degree = 15
v.Speed = 50
v.Direction = "left"
v.Style = "rough"
/// so many things on `v`...
steering(v)
I think it is not a good approach but sometimes... :-)
I have a function which takes an interface, like this:
func method(data interface{})
.. because I need to process different structs which have common fields/methods. In this function I use data tens or hundreds of times, in different places. It's really unpleasant to add switch a.(type) { case .. case .. all the time.
Is there a way to create a variable with just one switch with needed type and then just use this variable everywhere later? Something like:
var a .... // something here
switch data.(type) {
case *Struct1:
a = data.(*Struct1)
case *Struct2:
a = data.(*Struct2)
}
// Continue with 'a' only
a.Param = 15
fmt.Println(a.String())
Go is a statically typed language, the type of a must be known at compile time. And since Go does not support generics yet, you can't do what you want.
Try to come up with some other solution, e.g. abstract away the things you want to do with a into an interface, and have the concrete types implement that interface. Then a can be a variable of this interface type, and you can call methods of it.
If you can achieve this, actually you can even change the parameter of the data type to this interface, and no type assertion or type switch is needed.
Alternatively you could use reflection to access common fields (either for get or set) identified by their name, but reflection provides no compile-time guarantee, and it's usually less efficient. For an example how to do that, see this question: Assert interface to its type
You can't do what you ask for in your question directly, go is statically typed, so you can't have one variable that can hold different types, and still access that variable as if it is typed.
If you're only working on the common struct fields in your method, you are perhaps better off gathering all the common variables in its own struct, illustrated below as the commons struct and have your method take that type as an argument
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
type commons struct {
name string
age int
}
type structA struct {
commons
other_stuff int
}
type structB struct {
commons
foo string
}
func method(c* commons) {
fmt.Println(c)
c.age +=1
}
func main() {
a := structA{commons{"foo", 44}, 1}
b := structB{commons{"bar", 33}, "test"}
method(&a.commons)
method(&b.commons)
fmt.Println(a)
}
Go playground
I can't figure out what is your real goal but if the "method" you want to write handles common fields from similar structures, and you cannot fix original structures using Type Embedding, as #nos said above, then you can try to make another structure for method-internal use:
var v Vehicle // with common fields
switch data.(type) {
case *Car:
v.Handle = data.(*Car).Handle // or CircleHandle
case *Motorcycle:
v.Handle = data.(*Motorcycle).Handle // or BarHandle
}
v.Degree = 15
v.Speed = 50
v.Direction = "left"
v.Style = "rough"
/// so many things on `v`...
steering(v)
I think it is not a good approach but sometimes... :-)
I am a big fan of Golang, and very pleased to how the syntax of Go is designed. As a part of syntax philosophy, we have a rule as following: omit the things (keywords, characters etc.) if they are not needed actually.
For that reason instead of writing redundant colons:
for ; sum < 1000; {
sum += sum
}
You allowed to simply put:
for sum < 1000 {
sum += sum
}
notice how we omitted redundant semicolons
And there are lots of other cases where syntax is gratefully simplified.
But what about struct when we define type?
type Person struct {
name string
}
Why do we need to put struct keyword here?
Keywords are to determine intention, to clarify the exact choice of available options so a compiler knows how to do his job properly.
Will it be unclear and ambiguous if we simply put:
type Person {
name string
}
??
I believe there is a meaning for struct in the examples above
because compiler fails when type defined without struct keyword.
Please, explain me (and provide links) what else we can use instead of struct when we define some type.
Please, list available options from which we want to clarify to a compiler that things in curly brackets after type name are exactly parts of a struct and not something else (what else?).
Thanks.
It's not redundant. You can make types from existing types:
type MyType int
type MyType string
Or interfaces:
type Stringer interface {
String() string
}
This is covered in the Go tour and in the spec.
Types (may) not only appear in type declarations, but in countless other places, for example in function declarations.
Structs may be "used" anonymously, without creating a named type for them. For example, the following declaration is valid:
func GetPoint() struct{ x, y int } {
return struct{ x, y int }{1, 2}
}
Without having to use the struct keyword, a parsing ambiguity would arise in multiple uses. Let's say we want to create a function which returns an empty struct:
func GetEmpty() struct{} {
return struct{}{}
}
How would this look like without the struct keyword?
func GetEmpty2() {} {
return {}{}
}
Now if you're the compiler, what would you make out of this? Is this a function with the same signature as GetEmpty()? Or is this a function without a return value and an empty body (func GetEmpty2() {}) followed by a block which contains a return statement? The return statement would be another ambiguity, as it may return nothing which is followed by 2 empty blocks, or it may return an empty struct value which is followed by an empty block...
Now to avoid parsing ambiguity, we have to use the struct keyword when specifying struct types elsewhere (outside of type declarations), then why make it optional or disallow it in type declarations?
I think a consistent syntax is more important than grabbing all chances to reduce the language (syntax) to the minimum possible. That hurts readability big time. The for loop example you mentioned is not really a simplification, but rather the usage of different forms of the for loop.
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