If I have a name of a type (i.e "container/vector"), is there a way to lookup the reflect.Type that has the given name? I'm trying to write a simple database-backed workqueue system and this it would be very difficult without this feature.
I can't see how this would be possible in any trivial way (or at all), since name resolution is part of the compiler/linker, not the runtime.
However, http://github.com/nsf/gocode might offer up some ideas. Though I'm pretty sure that works by processing the .a files in $GOROOT, so I still don't see how you'd get the reflect.Type. Maybe if the exp/eval package was more mature?
Of course if you know all the possible types you'll encounter, you could always make a map of the reflect.Type. But I'm assuming you're working with unpredictable input, or you would've thought of that.
Only way to create a reflect.Type is by having a concrete value of the intended type first. You can't even create composite-types, such as a slice ([]T), from a base type (T).
The only way to go from a string to a reflect.Type is by entering the mapping yourself.
mapping := map[string]reflect.Type {
"string": reflect.Typeof(""),
"container/vector": reflect.Typeof(new(vector.Vector)),
/* ... */
}
Related
This question already has answers here:
Creating a Constant Type and Restricting the Type's Values
(2 answers)
What is an idiomatic way of representing enums in Go?
(14 answers)
Closed 8 months ago.
I have a struct Direction with a value of type string. Direction should be N, S, W or E.
type Direction struct {
value string
}
Inspired by an answer of this question: Does Go have "if x in" construct similar to Python? I guess a good way to create Direction in a valid manner can be this one:
func NewDirection(direction string) Direction {
switch direction {
case "N","S","W","E": return Direction{direction}
}
panic("invalid direction")
}
But this is not enough for me because I can still create invalid Direction:
d := Direction{"X"}
I also found this interesting article about enforcing the use of constructor in go. Reading this article I can see that is necessary the usage of another package. May I have a "protected" struct in, for example, main package?
You've already done almost everything you should do by convention:
make the field unexported
provide a constructor
put a comment on the type stating that the constructor should be used, and explain how zero-values are treated (if that matters)
Now users of the package can't modify the field, and the existence of the constrictor makes it clear that it should be called to create valid instances. This is the convention that is set by the standard library.
Sure, there are other ways that you can make it even harder to invalidate values but this is essentially just wasting time and overcomplicating your code for the sake of an unwinnable arms race against an imaginary opponent.
If someone doesn't understand the language and doesn't read documentation, then they're always going to find a way to misuse it. If they are actively trying to sabotage themselves, there's nothing you can do to stop them and no reason to either.
Packages are the smallest functional unit of code organization in Go. There is no way to protect field at, for example, the file level. Even files within the same package effectively operate as if all their code was in the same file. Therefore, any code in the same package as the constructor will have the same privileges as the constructor.
The official documentation recommands to use the same receiver name everywhere. But does it really make sense to comply with that?
I mean, I imagine something like func (first Foo) concat(second Foo) (combinded Foo) to be more expressive, while first does only make sense in that very context of concatenation. If we don't go that route, we're basically forced to resort to some agnostic but useless receiver naming like f, wasting an opportuniy for self-documenting code.
Given that 1. You have a good method name, 2. The receiver type is readily apparent from the method declaration, most of the time a short name like f is quite alright. In the case where you need to differentiate the receiver from a parameter, it suggests that you could use a regular function rather than a method, since apparently the receiver doesn't have an obvious meaning that follows from the method name.
Go Wiki: Receiver Names:
The name of a method's receiver should be a reflection of its identity; often a one or two letter abbreviation of its type suffices (such as "c" or "cl" for "Client"). Don't use generic names such as "me", "this" or "self", identifiers typical of object-oriented languages that gives the method a special meaning. In Go, the receiver of a method is just another parameter and therefore, should be named accordingly. The name need not be as descriptive as that of a method argument, as its role is obvious and serves no documentary purpose. It can be very short as it will appear on almost every line of every method of the type; familiarity admits brevity. Be consistent, too: if you call the receiver "c" in one method, don't call it "cl" in another.
If you have a single method, it probably doesn't matter. If you have a type with many (maybe even dozens of methods), it does help if you use the same receiver name in all. It's much easier to read and understand.
Also if you want / have to copy some code from one method to another (refactoring), if the receiver name is the same, you can just do copy / paste and your done, you don't have to start editing the different names.
Also Dave Cheney: Practical Go: Real world advice for writing maintainable Go programs:
2.4. Use a consistent naming style
Another property of a good name is it should be predictable. The reader should be able to understand the use of a name when they encounter it for the first time. When they encounter a common name, they should be able to assume it has not changed meanings since the last time they saw it.
For example, if your code passes around a database handle, make sure each time the parameter appears, it has the same name. Rather than a combination of d *sql.DB, dbase *sql.DB, DB *sql.DB, and database *sql.DB, instead consolidate on something like;
db *sql.DB
Doing so promotes familiarity; if you see a db, you know it’s a *sql.DB and that it has either been declared locally or provided for you by the caller.
Similar advice applies to method receivers; use the same receiver name every method on that type. This makes it easier for the reader to internalise the use of the receiver across the methods in this type.
Also an interesting reading: Neither self nor this: Receivers in Go
For example, in the following example from IOKit documentation, each entry for this device has different types, such as Data, Number, etc
How can I use IOKit to read the type of it? I know that we can use IORegistryEntryCreateCFProperties to create a dictionary for an entry and read the property as void pointer and cast it to the type we know it is, but how can I know its type without taking a look using IORegistry Explorer?
Note that you can use a similar function, IORegistryEntryCreateCFProperty to query only one property, which is usually more useful unless you're actually trying to build something similar to IORegistryExplorer itself and don't yet know the names of the properties you want to inspect.
In both cases, this really boils down to a Core Foundation question. You'll notice that rather than a truly opaque void*, IORegistryEntryCreateCFProperty() actually returns a CFTypeRef, and likewise, IORegistryEntryCreateCFProperties() promises to only return CoreFoundation-type objects in its dictionary. This means you can query the object's type using CFGetTypeID(). The exact value of this is meaningless, but it can be compared to the type IDs for the expected set of types, e.g. CFStringGetTypeID() for CFString, CFDataGetTypeID() for CFData and so on.
If you're using Objective-C, you can also perform a bridging cast and treat the property values as NSObject - and then find out the specific type using e.g. [object isKindOfClass:[NSString class]].
Perhaps this is a silly question, but is there a way to find all functions (in the standard library or GOPATH) that return a specific type?
For example there are many functions that take io.Writer as an argument. Now I want to know how to create an io.Writer and there are many ways to do so. But how can I find all the ways easily without guessing at packages and looking through all the methods to find those that return an io.Writer (or whatever other type I'm after)?
Edit: I should extend my question to also find types that implement a specific interface. Sticking with the io.Writer example (which admittedly was a bad example for the original question) it would be good to have a way to find any types that implement the Writer interface, since those types would be valid arguments for a function that takes takes an io.Writer and thus answer the original question when the type is an interface.
Maybe not the best way but take a look at the search field at the top of the official golang.org website. If you search for "Writer":
http://golang.org/search?q=Writer
You get many results, grouped by categories like
Types
Package-level declarations
Local declarations and uses
and Textual occurrences
Also note that io.Writer is an interface, and we all know how Go handles interfaces: when implementing an interface, there is no declaration of intent, a type implicitly implements an interface if the methods defined by the interface are declared. This means that you won't be able to find many examples where an io.Writer is created and returned because a type might be named entirely different and still be an io.Writer.
Things get a little easier if you look for a non-interface type for example bytes.Buffer.
Also in the documentation of the declaring package of the type the Index section groups functions and methods of the package by type so you will find functions and methods of the same package that return the type you're looking for right under its entry/link in the Index section.
Also note that you can check the dependencies of packages at godoc.org. For example you can see what packages import the io package which may be a good starting point to look for further examples (this would be exhausting in case of package io because it is so general that at the moment 23410 packages import it).
In my days coding I'm personally rare in need to find functions returning Int16 and error(func can return few values in Go, you know)
For second part of your question there exists wonderful cmd implements written by Dominik Honnef go get honnef.co/go/implements
After discover type that satisfy your conditions you can assume constructor for type (something like func NewTheType() TheType) would be just after TheType declaration in source code and docs. It's a proven Go practice.
if i had an instance of the following struct
type Node struct {
id string
name string
address string
conn net.Conn
enc json.Encoder
dec json.Decoder
in chan *Command
out chan *Command
clients map[string]ClientNodesContainer
}
i am failing to understand when i should send a struct by reference and when should i send it by value(considering that i do not want to make any changes to that instance), is there a rule of thumb that makes it easier to decide?
all i could find is send a struct by value when its small or inexpensive to copy, but does small really mean smaller than 64bit address for example?
would be glad if someone can point some more obvious rules
The rule is very simple:
There is no concept of "pass/send by reference" in Go, all you can do is pass by value.
Regarding the question whether to pass the value of your struct or a pointer to your struct (this is not call by reference!):
If you want to modify the value inside the function or method: Pass a pointer.
If you do not want to modify the value:
If your struct is large: Use pointer.
Otherwise: It just doesn't matter.
All this thinking about how much a copy costs you is wasted time. Copies are cheap, even for medium sized structs. Passing a pointer might be a suitable optimization after profiling.
Your struct is not large. A large struct contains fields like wholeWorldBuf [1000000]uint64.
Tiny structs like yours might or might not benefit from passing a pointer and anybody who gives advice which one is better is lying: It all depends on your code and call patterns.
If you run out of sensible options and profiling shows that time is spent copying your structs: Experiment with pointers.
The principle of "usually pass values for small structs you don't intend to mutate" I agree with, but this struct, right now, is 688 bytes on x64, most of those in the embedded json structs. The breakdown is:
16*4=64 for the three strings (pointer/len pairs) and the net.Conn (an interface value)
208 for the embedded json.Encoder
392 for the embedded json.Decoder
8*3=24 for the three chan/map values (must be pointers)
Here's the code I used to get that, though you need to save it locally to run it because it uses unsafe.Sizeof.
You could embed *Encoder/*Decoder instead of pointers, leaving you at 104 bytes. I think it's reasonable to keep as-is and pass *Nodes around, though.
The Go code review comments on receiver type say "How large is large? Assume it's equivalent to passing all its elements as arguments to the method. If that feels too large, it's also too large for the receiver." There is room for differences of opinion here, but for me, nine values, some multiple words, "feels large" even before getting precise numbers.
In the "Pass Values" section the review comments doc says "This advice does not apply to large structs, or even small structs that might grow." It doesn't say that the same standard for "large" applies to normal parameters as to receivers, but I think that's a reasonable approach.
Part of the subtlety of determining largeness, alluded to in the code review doc, is that many things in Go are internally pointers or small, reference-containing structs: slices (but not fixed-size arrays), strings, interface values, function values, channels, maps. Your struct may own a []byte pointing to a 64KB buffer, or a big struct via an interface, but still be cheap to copy. I wrote some about this in another answer, but nothing I said there prevents one from having to make some less-than-scientific judgement calls.
It's interesting to see what standard library methods do. bytes.Replace has ten words' worth of args, so that's at least sometimes OK to copy onto the stack. On the other hand go/ast tends to pass around references (either * pointers or interface values) even for non-mutating methods on its not-huge structs. Conclusion: it can be hard to reduce it to a couple simple rules. :)
Most of the time you should use passing by reference. Like:
func (n *Node) exampleFunc() {
...
}
Only situation when you would like to use passing instance by value is when you would like to be sure that your instance is safe from changes.