A package I am using, gosqlite, has a method with a variadic parameter where its type is the empty interface.
func (s *Stmt) Exec(args ...interface{}) os.Error
I can call this fine if explicitly pass individual parameters:
statement := blah()
error := statement.Exec("hello", 3.0, true) // works fine
However, as the variadic parameter corresponds to placeholders within the in operator of my SQL statement's select, the number of these placeholders is not known at compile time but dynamically changes at run time depending upon what the user is doing. E.g. I end up with SQL akin to the following if the user enters four values:
SELECT * FROM sky WHERE name IN (?,?,?,?)
So naturally I would like to call the Exec method with a slice of strings:
var values []string = getValuesFromUser()
statement := createStatementWithSufficientNumberOfPlaceholders(len(values))
_ := statement.Exec(values...) // compiler doesn't like this
This does not compile. I can get around this problem by creating an empty interface slice and copying the references over:
values2 := make([]interface{}, len(values))
for index, value := range values { values2[index] = value }
_ := statement.Exec(values2...) // compiler happy but I'm not
And this works fine but it feels a bit clunky. I was wondering if there was some trick to be able to pass values directly to this function or, failing that, a neater way of converting the string slice to an empty interface one?
Many thanks.
There is no way to pass a []string directly to a ...interface{} parameter. Doing this requires a linear time copy (with n + 1 allocations!). If the language hid this from you, it would be a significant hidden cost. Normally, passing a slice to a variadic argument just passes the slice into the function.
As for other ways of doing this, you could make it cleaner by writing a function that takes a []string and returns the corresponding []interface{}. Of course, you'll have to write it again for each []T -> []interface{} conversion you want to do, but its a rather short function, and all that changes is the signature. You could use reflection, which comes with an inherent runtime cost, to make the function "generic", such as in:
valuesVal := reflect.ValueOf(values)
...
for i := range values2 { values2[i] = valuesVal.Index(i).Interface() }
I don't have an answer. And I don't suppose there is one since even built-in and variadic copy and append have the same (or compatible concrete) element type "blockhead", but I have two obvious suggestions:
do not return []string from getValuesFromUser() (i.e. pass still unadorned []interface{}),
on the other type end wrap calls to statement.Exec() with a func making []string to []interface{} conversion.
Or on the same, third, obvious note extend type statement with Exec(args ...string).
P.S. I haven't made any benchmarks myself but I don't think this kind of conversion is highly expensive as interface{} feels like a reference type and compiler is probably doing some dirty trickstery behind the curtain... then again perhaps not, though, I'd be happy, too, to learn of an actual solution.
You need to pass a varargs slice of interface{} type like this to the method.
var paramArray []interface{}
paramArray = append(paramArray, "test1")
paramArray = append(paramArray, "test2")
varargsFunc(paramArray...)
Related
I am trying to create a Map with String and functions as key and Value. It works if all functions are of same signature but my requirement is to store functions of different signature in the same map. Is this possible in Go?
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
functions := buildFunctions()
f := functions["isInValid"]
// f("hello")
}
func buildFunctions() map[string]func() bool {
functions := map[string]func() bool{
"isInValid": isInValid,
"isAvailable": isAvailable,
}
return functions
}
func isInValid(s string) bool {
fmt.Println("Invalid ", s)
return true
}
func isAvailable(s string, s1 string) bool {
return true
}
https://play.golang.org/p/ocwCgEpa_0G
Go is a strongly typed language. So, it's not possible the way, it is possible with, say python. But just like python, once you do this, you loose the benefit of compile time error checks, and your runtime error checking has to be full-proof.
Here's what you can do:
Use map[string]interface{} type for your function map, which enables you to store anything. But then you are responsible to correctly type assertion at the time of calling. Problem is that, in most cases, if while calling a function, you could know the type of function, may be you might not need a map in the first place.
Use a map[string]string or map[string]interface{} as the argument, and return type in all the functions that are supposed to go into this map. Or at least put all the variable arguments into this map.
eg.
map[string](func (name string, age int, other_attributes
map[string]interface{}) (map[string]interface{}, error))
But again, each function call should provide the correct arguments, and there should also be checks inside the functions, to see (with non-panic version of map lookup), if the parameters are correctly provided, if not, you can return a custom error like ErrInvalidParametersPassed. (playing the role of an interpreter). But you will still have lesser chances of messing up, compared to first option. As the burden of type assertion will be on the function implementation, and not the caller. Caller just needs to fetch it's required values, which it anyways needs to know about.
But yet, best option would be to redesign your actual solution in a way, so that it can be done without going this road. As #bereal suggested in comments, it's good to have separate maps if possible, or maybe use a superset of arguments if they aren't too different, or too many. If there are just a few arguments, even switch case could be clean enough. Look for ways that cheat/bypass compile time checks, when you are truly convinced that there is no other elegant way.
I want to express a function that can take any slice. I thought that I could do this:
func myFunc(list []interface{}) {
for _, i := range list {
...
some_other_fun(i)
...
}
}
where some_other_fun(..) itself takes an interface{} type. However, this doesn't work because you can't pass []DEFINITE_TYPE as []interface{}. See: https://golang.org/doc/faq#convert_slice_of_interface which notes that the representation of an []interface{} is different. This answer sums up why but with respect to pointers to interfaces instead of slices of interfaces, but the reason is the same: Why can't I assign a *Struct to an *Interface?.
The suggestion provided at the golang.org link above suggests rebuilding a new interface slice from the DEFINITE_TYPE slice. However, this is not practical to do everywhere in the code that I want to call this function (This function is itself meant to abbreviate only 9 lines of code, but those 9 lines appear quite frequently in our code).
In every case that I want to invoke the function I would be passing a []*DEFINITE_TYPE which I at first thought would be easier to abstract until, again, I discovered Why can't I assign a *Struct to an *Interface? (also linked above).
Further, everytime I want to invoke the function it is with a different DEFINITE_TYPE so implementing n examples for the n types would not save me any lines of code or make my code any clearer (quite the contrary!).
It is frustrating that I can't do this since the 9 lines are idiomatic in our code and a mistype could easily introduce a bug. I'm really missing generics. Is there really no way to do this?!!
In the case you provided, you would have to create your slice as a slice of interface e.g. s := []interface{}{}. At which point you could literally put any type you wanted into the slice (even mixing types). But then you would have to do all sorts of type assertions and everything gets really nasty.
Another technique that is commonly used by unmarshalers is a definition like this:
func myFunc(list interface{})
Because a slice fits an interface, you can indeed pass a regular slice into this. You would still need to do some validation and type assertions in myFunc, but you would be doing single assertions on the entire list type, instead of having to worry about a list that could possibly contain mixed types.
Either way, due to being a statically typed language, you eventually have to know the type that is passed in via assertions. It's just the way things are. In your case, I would probably use the func signature as above, then use a type switch to handle the different cases. See this document https://newfivefour.com/golang-interface-type-assertions-switch.html
So, something like this:
func myFunc(list interface{}) {
switch v := list.(type) {
case []string:
// do string thing
case []int32, []int64:
// do int thing
case []SomeCustomType:
// do SomeCustomType thing
default:
fmt.Println("unknown")
}
}
No there is no easy way to deal with it. Many people miss generics in Go.
Maybe you can get inspired by sort.Sort function and sort.Interface to find a reasonable solution that would not require copying slices.
Probably the best thing to do is to define an interface that encapsulates what myFunc needs to do with the slice (i.e., in your example, get the nth element). Then the argument to the function is that interface type and you define the interface method(s) for each type you want to pass to the function.
You can also do it with the reflect package, but that's probably not a great idea since it will panic if you pass something other than a slice (or array or string).
func myFunc(list interface{}) {
listVal := reflect.ValueOf(list)
for i := 0; i < listVal.Len(); i++ {
//...
some_other_fun(listVal.Index(i).Interface())
//...
}
}
See https://play.golang.org/p/TyzT3lBEjB.
Now with Go 1.18+, you can use the generics feature to do that:
func myFunc[T any](list []T) {
for _, item := range list {
doSomething(item)
}
}
What's the cleanest way to handle a case such as this:
func a() string {
/* doesn't matter */
}
b *string = &a()
This generates the error:
cannot take the address of a()
My understanding is that Go automatically promotes a local variable to the heap if its address is taken. Here it's clear that the address of the return value is to be taken. What's an idiomatic way to handle this?
The address operator returns a pointer to something having a "home", e.g. a variable. The value of the expression in your code is "homeless". if you really need a *string, you'll have to do it in 2 steps:
tmp := a(); b := &tmp
Note that while there are completely valid use cases for *string, many times it's a mistake to use them. In Go string is a value type, but a cheap one to pass around (a pointer and an int). String's value is immutable, changing a *string changes where the "home" points to, not the string value, so in most cases *string is not needed at all.
See the relevant section of the Go language spec. & can only be used on:
Something that is addressable: variable, pointer indirection, slice indexing operation, field selector of an addressable struct, array indexing operation of an addressable array; OR
A composite literal
What you have is neither of those, so it doesn't work.
I'm not even sure what it would mean even if you could do it. Taking the address of the result of a function call? Usually, you pass a pointer of something to someone because you want them to be able to assign to the thing pointed to, and see the changes in the original variable. But the result of a function call is temporary; nobody else "sees" it unless you assign it to something first.
If the purpose of creating the pointer is to create something with a dynamic lifetime, similar to new() or taking the address of a composite literal, then you can assign the result of the function call to a variable and take the address of that.
In the end you are proposing that Go should allow you to take the address of any expression, for example:
i,j := 1,2
var p *int = &(i+j)
println(*p)
The current Go compiler prints the error: cannot take the address of i + j
In my opinion, allowing the programmer to take the address of any expression:
Doesn't seem to be very useful (that is: it seems to have very small probability of occurrence in actual Go programs).
It would complicate the compiler and the language spec.
It seems counterproductive to complicate the compiler and the spec for little gain.
I recently was tied up in knots about something similar.
First talking about strings in your example is a distraction, use a struct instead, re-writing it to something like:
func a() MyStruct {
/* doesn't matter */
}
var b *MyStruct = &a()
This won't compile because you can't take the address of a(). So do this:
func a() MyStruct {
/* doesn't matter */
}
tmpA := a()
var b *MyStruct = &tmpA
This will compile, but you've returned a MyStruct on the stack, allocated sufficient space on the heap to store a MyStruct, then copied the contents from the stack to the heap. If you want to avoid this, then write it like this:
func a2() *MyStruct {
/* doesn't matter as long as MyStruct is created on the heap (e.g. use 'new') */
}
var a *MyStruct = a2()
Copying is normally inexpensive, but those structs might be big. Even worse when you want to modify the struct and have it 'stick' you can't be copying then modifying the copies.
Anyway, it gets all the more fun when you're using a return type of interface{}. The interface{} can be the struct or a pointer to a struct. The same copying issue comes up.
You can't get the reference of the result directly when assigning to a new variable, but you have idiomatic way to do this without the use of a temporary variable (it's useless) by simply pre-declaring your "b" pointer - this is the real step you missed:
func a() string {
return "doesn't matter"
}
b := new(string) // b is a pointer to a blank string (the "zeroed" value)
*b = a() // b is now a pointer to the result of `a()`
*b is used to dereference the pointer and directly access the memory area which hold your data (on the heap, of course).
Play with the code: https://play.golang.org/p/VDhycPwRjK9
Yeah, it can be annoying when APIs require the use of *string inputs even though you’ll often want to pass literal strings to them.
For this I make a very tiny function:
// Return pointer version of string
func p(s string) *string {
return &s
}
and then instead of trying to call foo("hi") and getting the dreaded cannot use "hi" (type string) as type *string in argument to foo, I just wrap the argument in a call to to p():
foo(p("hi"))
a() doesn't point to a variable as it is on the stack. You can't point to the stack (why would you ?).
You can do that if you want
va := a()
b := &va
But what your really want to achieve is somewhat unclear.
At the time of writing this, none of the answers really explain the rationale for why this is the case.
Consider the following:
func main() {
m := map[int]int{}
val := 1
m[0] = val
v := &m[0] // won't compile, but let's assume it does
delete(m, 0)
fmt.Println(v)
}
If this code snippet actually compiled, what would v point to!? It's a dangling pointer since the underlying object has been deleted.
Given this, it seems like a reasonable restriction to disallow addressing temporaries
guess you need help from More effective Cpp ;-)
Temp obj and rvalue
“True temporary objects in C++ are invisible - they don't appear in your source code. They arise whenever a non-heap object is created but not named. Such unnamed objects usually arise in one of two situations: when implicit type conversions are applied to make function calls succeed and when functions return objects.”
And from Primer Plus
lvalue is a data object that can be referenced by address through user (named object). Non-lvalues include literal constants (aside from the quoted strings, which are represented by their addresses), expressions with multiple terms, such as (a + b).
In Go lang, string literal will be converted into StrucType object, which will be a non-addressable temp struct object. In this case, string literal cannot be referenced by address in Go.
Well, the last but not the least, one exception in go, you can take the address of the composite literal. OMG, what a mess.
Let say that I have
connection := pool.GetConnection().(*DummyConnection)
where pool.GetConnection returns interface{} and I would like to cast it to DummyConnection.
I would like to change the GetConnection interface to return error. The code starts looking like this:
connectionInterface, err := pool.GetConnection()
connection := connectionInterface.(*DummyConnection)
I am wondering, can I avoid the need of helper variable and have these on a single line?
You cannot combine those two statements because the function returns a pair of values and there is no way to state which of them you would like to do the type assertion on. With the assignment it works because the identifiers are ordered as are the the return values, but how do you expect the compiler to infer which value you'd like to execute the type assertion on?
I wouldn't recommend trying to reduce your code too much in Go. It's not really consistent with how the language is designed and I believe that is deliberate. The philosophy is that this is easier to read because there isn't much abstraction and also because you're not given so many options to achieve the same result. Anyway, you wouldn't really be saving much with that type assertion and any function call like this requires a few additional lines of code for error handling. It's pretty much the norm in Go.
a solution in some kind. not reduce the code, but reduce variables in out function scope, by moving it to a anonymous inner function.
package main
import "fmt"
type t struct{}
func foo()(interface{},error){
return &t{},nil
}
func main() {
var myT *t
myT, err := func() (*t,error){
i,e:=foo()
return i.(*t),e
}()
fmt.Println(myT,err)
}
I'm quite new to Go, so this might be obvious. The compiler does not allow the following code:
(http://play.golang.org/p/3sTLguUG3l)
package main
import "fmt"
type Card string
type Hand []Card
func NewHand(cards []Card) Hand {
hand := Hand(cards)
return hand
}
func main() {
value := []string{"a", "b", "c"}
firstHand := NewHand(value)
fmt.Println(firstHand)
}
The error is:
/tmp/sandbox089372356/main.go:15: cannot use value (type []string) as type []Card in argument to NewHand
From the specs, it looks like []string is not the same underlying type as []Card, so the type conversion cannot occur.
Is it, indeed, the case, or did I miss something?
If it is the case, why is it so? Assuming, in a non-pet-example program, I have as input a slice of string, is there any way to "cast" it into a slice of Card, or do I have to create a new structure and copy the data into it? (Which I'd like to avoid since the functions I'll need to call will modify the slice content).
There is no technical reason why conversion between slices whose elements have identical underlying types (such as []string and []Card) is forbidden. It was a specification decision to help avoid accidental conversions between unrelated types that by chance have the same structure.
The safe solution is to copy the slice. However, it is possible to convert directly (without copying) using the unsafe package:
value := []string{"a", "b", "c"}
// convert &value (type *[]string) to *[]Card via unsafe.Pointer, then deref
cards := *(*[]Card)(unsafe.Pointer(&value))
firstHand := NewHand(cards)
https://play.golang.org/p/tto57DERjYa
Obligatory warning from the package documentation:
unsafe.Pointer allows a program to defeat the type system and read and write arbitrary memory. It should be used with extreme care.
There was a discussion on the mailing list about conversions and underlying types in 2011, and a proposal to allow conversion between recursively equivalent types in 2016 which was declined "until there is a more compelling reason".
The underlying type of Card might be the same as the underlying type of string (which is itself: string), but the underlying type of []Card is not the same as the underlying type of []string (and therefore the same applies to Hand).
You cannot convert a slice of T1 to a slice of T2, it's not a matter of what underlying types they have, if T1 is not identical to T2, you just can't. Why? Because slices of different element types may have different memory layout (different size in memory). For example the elements of type []byte occupy 1 byte each. The elements of []int32 occupy 4 bytes each. Obviously you can't just convert one to the other even if all values are in the range 0..255.
But back to the roots: if you need a slice of Cards, why do you create a slice of strings in the first place? You created the type Card because it is not a string (or at least not just a string). If so and you require []Card, then create []Card in the first place and all your problems go away:
value := []Card{"a", "b", "c"}
firstHand := NewHand(value)
fmt.Println(firstHand)
Note that you are still able to initialize the slice of Card with untyped constant string literals because it can be used to initialize any type whose underlying type is string. If you want to involve typed string constants or non-constant expressions of type string, you need explicit conversion, like in the example below:
s := "ddd"
value := []Card{"a", "b", "c", Card(s)}
If you have a []string, you need to manually build a []Card from it. There is no "easier" way. You can create a helper toCards() function so you can use it everywhere you need it.
func toCards(s []string) []Card {
c := make([]Card, len(s))
for i, v := range s {
c[i] = Card(v)
}
return c
}
Some links for background and reasoning:
Go Language Specification: Conversions
why []string can not be converted to []interface{} in golang
Cannot convert []string to []interface {}
What about memory layout means that []T cannot be converted to []interface in Go?
From the specs, it looks like []string is not the same underlying type as []Card, so the type conversion cannot occur.
Exactly right. You have to convert it by looping and copying over each element, converting the type from string to Card on the way.
If it is the case, why is it so? Assuming, in a non-pet-example program, I have as input a slice of string, is there any way to "cast" it into a slice of Card, or do I have to create a new structure and copy the data into it? (Which I'd like to avoid since the functions I'll need to call will modify the slice content).
Because conversions are always explicit and the designers felt that when a conversion implicitly involves a copy it should be made explicit as well.