Got a struct method that returns a pointer:
func (d *DataMap) Get(p Coord) *CellData {
return &d.Data[p.X+(p.Y*d.Size)]
}
The d.Data is an array of CellData which is a struct with several fields. With this method I can modify the inner value of each field, ie:
example.Get(p).Something = 123
But I cannot do something like this:
example.Get(p) = *yada (yada is a *CellData)
Where I want to replace the pointer with another pointer I get:
cannot assign to example.Get(p)(undefined)
What am I doing wrong? The output of the function is defined, dont' know why I'm getting that error. Right now I fixed this by accessing the array directly.
Thanks.
Get returns a pointer, so if you want to store into whatever that pointer is pointing to, you need to add a * (pointer dereference) at the beginning:
*(example.Get(p)) = *yada
Related
I want to find out why
x:= odsMap[segRef]
x.GetValue("#OriginDestinationKey")
works, but this does not:
odsMap[segRef].GetValue("#OriginDestinationKey")
?
The last snippet prints the following errors:
cannot call pointer method on odsMap[segRef]go
cannot take the address of odsMap[segRef]
These errors happen during compilation time (not runtime). So, my main question is why I need an intermediate variable x to access the function?
Regarding the type of the variables odsMap is a map[string] XMLElement and segRef is a string.
Thanks.
Map index expressions are not addressable, because the internals of a map may change when a new entry is added to it, so the spec intentionally does not allow taking its address (this gives greater freedom for map implementations).
This means if you store non-pointers in the map, and you want to call a method of a stored value that has a pointer receiver, that would require to take the address of the non-pointer value (to be used as the receiver), but since map index expressions are not addressable, that results in a compile-time error.
A workaround is to store pointer values in the map, so there is no need to take the address of an index expression, because it's already a pointer. An example of this can be seen in this answer: Why should constructor of Go return address? If we have this type:
type My int
func (m *My) Str() string { return strconv.Itoa(int(*m)) }
This gives the compile-time error in question:
m := map[int]My{0: My(12)}
m[0].Str() // Error!
But this works:
m := map[int]*My{}
my := My(12)
m[0] = &my // Store a pointer in the map
m[0].Str() // You can call it, no need to take the address of m[0]
// as it is already a pointer
Another option is to assign it to a local variable whose address can be taken, and call the pointer method on that. Care must be taken though, as if the method has pointer receiver, it might modify pointed object or its components (e.g. fields of a struct), which would not be reflected in the value stored in the map. If you go down this path, you might have to reassign the value to the key in the map to have the updated value.
All-in-all, if you have a value whose type has methods with pointer receiver, you're better off using it (store, pass) as a pointer and not as a non-pointer value.
See related questions:
Pointer methods on non pointer types
How can I store reference to the result of an operation in Go?
#icza's answer is the correct one.
Here is an example to illustrate how "value receiver" vs "pointer receiver" interact with "pointer map" vs "values map" :
https://play.golang.org/p/JVp6DirgPkU
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
// a simple type, with two methods : one with a value receiver, one with a pointer receiver
type Item struct {
name string
}
func (i Item) GetNameByValue() string {
return i.name
}
func (i *Item) GetNameByRef() string {
return i.name
}
func main() {
{
// in this map, we store *pointers* to Item values
mapByRef := make(map[int]*Item)
mapByRef[0] = &Item{"I am stored as a pointer"}
// GetNameByRef will work on a *Item : "mapByRef[0]" is already a pointer
fmt.Println("GetByRef :", mapByRef[0].GetNameByRef())
// GetNameByValue will work on a *Item : go automatically turns this into '(*mapByRef[0]).GetNameByValue()', and this is valid
fmt.Println("GetByValue :", mapByRef[0].GetNameByValue())
}
{
// in this map, we store Item values (no pointers)
mapByValue := make(map[int]Item)
mapByValue[0] = Item{"I am stored as a value"}
// GetNameByValue will work on a Item : "mapByValue[0]" has the right type
fmt.Println("GetByValue :", mapByValue[0].GetNameByValue())
// GetNameByRef will not work : go tries to turn this into : (&mapByValue[0]).GetNameByRef(),
// and go refuses to let you take the address of a value inside a map
// fmt.Println("GetByRef :", mapByValue[0].GetNameByRef())
// compiler error :
// ./prog.go:47:46: cannot call pointer method on mapByValue[0]
// ./prog.go:47:46: cannot take the address of mapByValue[0]
// you will need some way to copy the value before taking its address :
item := mapByValue[0]
fmt.Println("item.GetByRef :", item.GetNameByRef())
// same as :
fmt.Println("(&item).GetByRef :", (&item).GetNameByRef())
}
}
// Output :
//
// GetByRef : I am stored as a pointer
// GetByValue : I am stored as a pointer
// GetByValue : I am stored as a value
// item.GetByRef : I am stored as a value
// (&item).GetByRef : I am stored as a value
Its a simple code, saving car type objects into a car type array. I am trying to use pointer here to pass array reference.
There are 2 problems:
1 - I can't initialize it as empty array. When I use make, it says:
cannot make type *[]car
2 - If I don't use make, runtime error occurs:
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
Code:
import "fmt"
type car struct {
plate string
color string
}
func main() {
var _cars *[]car // list of cars
_cars = make(*[]car, 4) // initialize empty cars list
saveCar(_cars, car{"ABC-123", "Black"})
saveCar(_cars, car{"ABC-456", "Black"})
saveCar(_cars, car{"ABC-789", "Black"})
fmt.Println(_cars)
}
func saveCar(_cars_list *[]car, _car car) int {
for index, current := range *_cars_list {
// if empty place found, save car
if (car{}) == current {
// save car
(*_cars_list)[index] = _car
// return the saved index
return index
}
}
return -1
}
Changing this would make your code work:
tCars := make([]car, 4)
_cars = &tCars
1 - cannot make type *[]car
You observe it because make creates slice, map or chan. In the example you gave you tried to create pointer to a slice which is none of the typed make works with.
2 - If I don't use make, runtime error occurs:
that's another problem - you have type "pointer to a slice of car", not "a slice of car". And in general you need to initialize pointer types before using.
Overall there is no need to use pointer to a slice rather than plain slice in your case, because you don't use append, to there is no chance for reallocation of backed storage.
However, in a real world scenario, when you don't know amount of car instances you are going to add, is much better to use append instead of iterating through slice till the last non-initialized value.
summary:
to make your program work change *[]car to []car everywhere (example https://play.golang.org/p/lpCtvXqG6UY)
another (and probably better) way is to use append instead of saveCar (don't forget to use returned value in case of happened re-allocation, example: https://play.golang.org/p/L8V10tSb-IJ)
When the formal parameter is map, assigning a value directly to a formal parameter cannot change the actual argument, but if you add a new key and value to the formal parameter, the actual argument outside the function can also be seen. Why is that?
I don't understand the output value of the following code, and the formal parameters are different from the actual parameters.
unc main() {
t := map[int]int{
1: 1,
}
fmt.Println(unsafe.Pointer(&t))
copysss(t)
fmt.Println(t)
}
func copysss(m map[int]int) {
//pointer := unsafe.Pointer(&m)
//fmt.Println(pointer)
m = map[int]int{
1: 2,
}
}
stdout :0xc000086010
map[1:1]
func main() {
t := map[int]int{
1: 1,
}
fmt.Println(unsafe.Pointer(&t))
copysss(t)
fmt.Println(t)
}
func copysss(m map[int]int) {
//pointer := unsafe.Pointer(&m)
//fmt.Println(pointer)
m[1] = 2
}
stdout :0xc00007a010
map[1:2]
func main() {
t := map[int]int{
1: 1,
}
fmt.Println(unsafe.Pointer(&t))
copysss(t)
fmt.Println(t)
}
func copysss(m map[int]int) {
pointer := unsafe.Pointer(&m)
fmt.Println(pointer)
m[1] = 2
}
stdout:0xc00008a008
0xc00008a018
map[1:2]
I want to know if the parameter is a value or a pointer.
The parameter is both a value and a pointer.
Wait.. whut?
Yes, a map (and slices, for that matter) are types, pretty similar to what you would implement. Think of a map like this:
type map struct {
// meta information on the map
meta struct{
keyT type
valueT type
len int
}
value *hashTable // pointer to the underlying data structure
}
So in your first function, where you reassign m, you're passing a copy of the struct above (pass by value), and you're assigning a new map to it, creating a new hashtable pointer in the process. The variable in the function scope is updated, but the one you passed still holds a reference to the original map, and with it, the pointer to the original map is preserved.
In the second snippet, you're accessing the underlying hash table (a copy of the pointer, but the pointer points to the same memory). You're directly manipulating the original map, because you're just changing the contents of the memory.
So TL;DR
A map is a value, containing meta information of what the map looks like, and a pointer to the actual data stored inside. The pointer is passed by value, like anything else (same way pointers are passed by value in C/C++), but of course, dereferencing a pointer means you're changing the values in memory directly.
Careful...
Like I said, slices work pretty much in the same way:
type slice struct {
meta struct {
type T
len, cap int
}
value *array // yes, it's a pointer to an underlying array
}
The underlying array is of say, a slice of ints will be [10]int if the cap of the slice is 10, regardless of the length. A slice is managed by the go runtime, so if you exceed the capacity, a new array is allocated (twice the cap of the previous one), the existing data is copied over, and the slice value field is set to point to the new array. That's the reason why append returns the slice that you're appending to, the underlying pointer may have changed etc.. you can find more in-depth information on this.
The thing you have to be careful with is that a function like this:
func update(s []int) {
for i, v := range s {
s[i] = v*2
}
}
will behave much in the same way as the function you have were you're assigning m[1] = 2, but once you start appending, the runtime is free to move the underlying array around, and point to a new memory address. So bottom line: maps and slices have an internal pointer, which can produce side-effects, but you're better off avoiding bugs/ambiguities. Go supports multiple return values, so just return a slice if you set about changing it.
Notes:
In your attempt to figure out what a map is (reference, value, pointer...), I noticed you tried this:
pointer := unsafe.Pointer(&m)
fmt.Println(pointer)
What you're doing there, is actually printing the address of the argument variable, not any address that actually corresponds to the map itself. the argument passed to unsafe.Pointer isn't of the type map[int]int, but rather it's of type *map[int]int.
Personally, I think there's too much confusion around passing by value vs passing by . Go works exactly like C in this regard, just like C, absolutely everything is passed by value. It just so happens that this value can sometimes be a memory address (pointer).
More details (references)
Slices: usage & internals
Maps Note: there's some confusion caused by this one, as pointers, slices, and maps are referred to as *reference types*, but as explained by others, and elsewhere, this is not to be confused with C++ references
In Go, map is a reference type. This means that the map actually resides in the heap and variable is just a pointer to that.
The map is passed by copy. You can change the local copy in your function, but this will not be reflected in caller's scope.
But, since the map variable is a pointer to the unique map residing in the heap, every change can be seen by any variable that points to the same map.
This article can clarify the concept: https://www.ardanlabs.com/blog/2014/12/using-pointers-in-go.html.
Supposedly maps are reference types in Go, so when returning them from functions, you don't need to pass as a pointer to the map in order for the changes to be visible outside the function body. But what if said map is returned from a method on a non-pointer struct?
For example:
type ExampleMapHolder struct {
theUnexportedMap map[string]int
}
func (emp ExampleMapHolder) TheMap() map[string]int {
return emp.theUnexportedMap
}
If I make a call to TheMap(), and then modify a value in it, will this change be visible elsewhere even though the receiver is not a pointer? I imagine it would return a reference to a map that belonged to a copy of ExampleMapHolder, but haven't been able to find an explicit answer in the docs.
Why won't you just check it?
emp := ExampleMapHolder{make(map[string]int)}
m := emp.TheMap()
m["a"] = 1
fmt.Println(emp) // Prints {map[a:1]}
Playground: http://play.golang.org/p/jGZqFr97_y
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how pointers, slices, and interfaces interact in Go. This is what I currently have coded up:
type Loader interface {
Load(string, string)
}
type Foo struct {
a, b string
}
type FooList []Foo
func (l FooList) Load(a, b string) {
l = append(l, Foo{a, b})
// l contains 1 Foo here
}
func Load(list Loader) {
list.Load("1", "2")
// list is still nil here
}
Given this setup, I then try to do the following:
var list FooList
Load(list)
fmt.Println(list)
However, list is always nil here. My FooList.Load function does add an element to the l slice, but that's as far as it gets. The list in Load continues to be nil. I think I should be able to just pass the reference to my slice around and have things append to it. I'm obviously missing something on how to get it to work though.
(Code in http://play.golang.org/p/uuRKjtxs9D)
If you intend your method to make changes, you probably want to use a pointer receiver.
// We also define a method Load on a FooList pointer receiver.
func (l *FooList) Load(a, b string) {
*l = append(*l, Foo{a, b})
}
This has a consequence, though, that a FooList value won't itself satisfy the Loader interface.
var list FooList
Load(list) // You should see a compiler error at this point.
A pointer to a FooList value, though, will satisfy the Loader interface.
var list FooList
Load(&list)
Complete code below:
package main
import "fmt"
/////////////////////////////
type Loader interface {
Load(string, string)
}
func Load(list Loader) {
list.Load("1", "2")
}
/////////////////////////////
type Foo struct {
a, b string
}
// We define a FooList to be a slice of Foo.
type FooList []Foo
// We also define a method Load on a FooList pointer receiver.
func (l *FooList) Load(a, b string) {
*l = append(*l, Foo{a, b})
}
// Given that we've defined the method with a pointer receiver, then a plain
// old FooList won't satisfy the Loader interface... but a FooList pointer will.
func main() {
var list FooList
Load(&list)
fmt.Println(list)
}
I'm going to simplify the problem so it's easier to understand. What is being done there is very similar to this, which also does not work (you can run it here):
type myInt int
func (a myInt) increment() { a = a + 1 }
func increment(b myInt) { b.increment() }
func main() {
var c myInt = 42
increment(c)
fmt.Println(c) // => 42
}
The reason why this does not work is because Go passes parameters by value, as the documentation describes:
In a function call, the function value and arguments are evaluated in the usual
order. After they are evaluated, the parameters of the call are passed by value
to the function and the called function begins execution.
In practice, this means that each of a, b, and c in the example above are pointing to different int variables, with a and b being copies of the initial c value.
To fix it, we must use pointers so that we can refer to the same area of memory (runnable here):
type myInt int
func (a *myInt) increment() { *a = *a + 1 }
func increment(b *myInt) { b.increment() }
func main() {
var c myInt = 42
increment(&c)
fmt.Println(c) // => 43
}
Now a and b are both pointers that contain the address of variable c, allowing their respective logic to change the original value. Note that the documented behavior still holds here: a and b are still copies of the original value, but the original value provided as a parameter to the increment function is the address of c.
The case for slices is no different than this. They are references, but the reference itself is provided as a parameter by value, so if you change the reference, the call site will not observe the change since they are different variables.
There's also a different way to make it work, though: implementing an API that resembles that of the standard append function. Again using the simpler example, we might implement increment without mutating the original value, and without using a pointer, by returning the changed value instead:
func increment(i int) int { return i+1 }
You can see that technique used in a number of places in the standard library, such as the strconv.AppendInt function.
It's worth keeping a mental model of how Go's data structures are implemented. That usually makes it easier to reason about behaviour like this.
http://research.swtch.com/godata is a good introduction to the high-level view.
Go is pass-by-value. This is true for both parameters and receivers. If you need to assign to the slice value, you need to use a pointer.
Then I read somewhere that you shouldn't pass pointers to slices since
they are already references
This is not entirely true, and is missing part of the story.
When we say something is a "reference type", including a map type, a channel type, etc., we mean that it is actually a pointer to an internal data structure. For example, you can think of a map type as basically defined as:
// pseudocode
type map *SomeInternalMapStructure
So to modify the "contents" of the associative array, you don't need to assign to a map variable; you can pass a map variable by value and that function can change the contents of the associative array pointed to by the map variable, and it will be visible to the caller. This makes sense when you realize it's a pointer to some internal data structure. You would only assign to a map variable if you want to change which internal associative array you want it to point to.
However, a slice is more complicated. It is a pointer (to an internal array), plus the length and capacity, two integers. So basically, you can think of it as:
// pseudocode
type slice struct {
underlyingArray uintptr
length int
capacity int
}
So it's not "just" a pointer. It is a pointer with respect to the underlying array. But the length and capacity are "value" parts of the slice type.
So if you just need to change an element of the slice, then yes, it acts like a reference type, in that you can pass the slice by value and have the function change an element and it's visible to the caller.
However, when you append() (which is what you're doing in the question), it's different. First, appending affects the length of the slice, and length is one of the direct parts of the slice, not behind a pointer. Second, appending may produce a different underlying array (if the capacity of the original underlying array is not enough, it allocates a new one); thus the array pointer part of the slice might also be changed. Thus it is necessary to change the slice value. (This is why append() returns something.) In this sense, it cannot be regarded as a reference type, because we are not just "changing what it points to"; we are changing the slice directly.