As I understand it, I cannot define equality for user-defined types in Go. So what would be the idiomatic way of computing the number of distinct objects of some custom type (possibly recursively defined). Here is an example of the kind of thing I am trying to do.
package main
import "fmt"
type tree struct {
left *tree
right *tree
}
func shapeOf(a tree) string {
temp := "{"
if a.left != nil {
temp += shapeOf(*(a.left))
}
temp += "}{"
if a.right != nil {
temp += shapeOf(*(a.right))
}
temp += "}"
return temp;
}
func main() {
a := tree{nil, nil}
b := tree{nil, &a}
c := tree{nil, nil}
d := tree{nil, &c}
e := tree{nil, nil}
f := tree{&e, nil}
s := make(map[string]bool)
s[shapeOf(b)] = true
s[shapeOf(d)] = true
s[shapeOf(f)] = true
fmt.Println(len(s)) // As required, prints 2 because the first two trees have the same shape
}
It works, but the use of strings is extremely ugly, and probably inefficient too. Obviously I could easily write a recursive method to tell if two trees are equal - something like
func areEqual(a, b tree) bool
but this wouldn't enable me to use trees as map keys. What is the idiomatic Go way to do something like this?
You cannot define equality for user-defined type because it is already defined by go. Basically, all there is to know about it is explained in the comparable section.
Short story: two struct values can be compared if their fields can be compared (no slice, map or function). And same thing for equality: two structs are equal if their fields are equal. In your case, the problem is that for comparing pointers, Golang compares the memory addresses, not the struct they point to.
So, is this possible to count distinct values of a certain struct ? Yes, if the struct contain no nested slice, map, function or pointer. For recursive types, that's not possible because you cannot define something like this:
type tree struct {
left tree
right tree
}
The idiomatic way of testing the equality of recursive types is to use reflect.DeepEqual(t1, t2 interface{}) as it follows indirections. However, this method is inefficient because uses heavy reflection. In your case, I do not think there is any clean and elegant solution to get what you want.
Related
Is there a reason why I should create a struct using &StructName{} instead of Struct{}? I see many examples using the former syntax, even in the Effective Go Page but I really can not understand why.
Additional Notes:
I'm not sure whether I explained my problem well with these two approaches so let me refine my question.
I know that by using the & I will recieve a pointer instead of a value however I would like to know why would I use the &StructName{} instead of the StructName{}. For example, is there any benefits of using:
func NewJob(command string, logger *log.Logger) *Job {
return &Job{command, logger}
}
instead of:
func NewJob(command string, logger *log.Logger) Job {
return Job{command, logger}
}
Well, they will have different behavior. Essentially if you want to modify state using a method on a struct, then you will need a pointer, otherwise a value will be fine. Maybe an example will be better:
package main
import "fmt"
type test_struct struct {
Message string
}
func (t test_struct)Say (){
fmt.Println(t.Message)
}
func (t test_struct)Update(m string){
t.Message = m;
}
func (t * test_struct) SayP(){
fmt.Println(t.Message)
}
func (t* test_struct) UpdateP(m string) {
t.Message = m;
}
func main(){
ts := test_struct{}
ts.Message = "test";
ts.Say()
ts.Update("test2")
ts.Say() // will still output test
tsp := &test_struct{}
tsp.Message = "test"
tsp.SayP();
tsp.UpdateP("test2")
tsp.SayP() // will output test2
}
And you can run it here go playground
Assuming you know the general difference between a pointer and a value:
The first way allocates a struct and assigns a pointer to that allocated struct to the variable p1.
p1 := &StructName{}
The second way allocates a struct and assigns a value (the struct itself) to the variable s.
Then a pointer to that struct may be assigned to another variable (p2 in the following example).
s := StructName{}
p2 := &s
I have managed to do this, but it does not look efficient:
var t reflect.Type
switch t {
case reflect.TypeOf(([]uint8)(nil)):
// handle []uint8 array type
}
First question, are you sure you want to switch on reflect.Type and not use a type switch? Example:
switch x := y.(type) {
case []uint8:
// x is now a []uint8
}
Assuming that will not work for your situation, my recommendation is to make those package variables. Example:
var uint8SliceType = reflect.TypeOf(([]uint8)(nil))
func Foo() {
var t reflect.Type
switch t {
case uint8SliceType:
// handle []uint8 array type
}
}
you may not need reflect if you are just trying to detect type.
switch t := myVar.(type){
case []uint8:
// t is []uint8
case *Foo:
// t is *Foo
default:
panic("unknown type")
}
What are you actually trying to accomplish?
The answer to the initial question How to switch on reflect.Type? is: You can’t. However, you can do it with reflect.Value.
Given a variable v interface{} you can call reflect.TypeOf(v) and reflect.ValueOf(v), which return a reflect.Type or reflect.Value, resp.
If the type of v is not interface{} then these function calls will convert it to interface{}.
reflect.Type contains various run-time information about the type, but it does not contain anything usable to retrieve the type of v itself as needed in a type switch.
Hovewer, reflect.Value provides it through its Interface() method, which returns the underlying value as interface{}. This you can use in a type switch or type assertion.
import "fmt"
import "reflect"
var v int
var rt reflect.Type = reflect.TypeOf(v)
fmt.Println(rt.String(), " has awesome properties: Its alignment is",
rt.Align(), ", it has", rt.Size(), "bytes, is it even comparable?",
rt.Comparable())
// … but reflect.Type won’t tell us what the real type is :(
// Let’s see if reflect.Value can help us.
var rv reflect.Value = reflect.ValueOf(v)
// Here we go:
vi := rv.Interface()
switch vi.(type) {
// Mission accomplished.
}
Perhaps it helps to clarify a few points which may cause confusion about dynamic typing in Go. At least I was confused by this for quite some time.
reflect vs. interface{}
In Go there are two systems of run-time generics:
In the language: interface{}, useful for type switches/assertions,
In the library: The reflect package, useful for inspection of run-time generic types and values of such.
These two systems are separated worlds, and things that are possible with one are impossible with the other. For example, Given an interface{}, it is in plain Go (with safe code) impossible to, say, if the value is an array or slice, regardless of its element type, then get the value of the i-th element. One needs to use reflect in order to do that. Conversely, with reflect it is impossible to make a type switch or assertion: convert it to interface{}, then you can do that.
There are only very few points of an interface between these systems. In one direction it is the TypeOf() and ValueOf() functions which accept interface{} and return a reflect struct. In the other direction it is Value.Interface().
It is a bit counter-intuitive that one needs a Value, not a Type, to do a type switch. At least this is somewhat consistent with the fact that one needs a value construct a Type by calling TypeOf().
reflect.Kind
Both reflect.Type and reflect.Value have a Kind() method. Some suggest using the value these methods return, of type reflect.Kind, to imitate a type switch.
While this may be useful in certain situations, it is not a replacement for a type switch. For example, using Kind one cannot distinguish between int64 and time.Duration because the latter is defined as
type Duration int64
Kind is useful to tell if a type is any kind of struct, array, slice etc., regardless of the types it is composed of. This is not possible to find out with a type switch.
(Side note. I had the same question and found no answer here helpful so I went to figure it out myself. The repeated counter-question “why are you doing this?”, followed by unrelated answers did not help me either. I have a good reason why I want to do it precisely this way.)
This might work.
switch t := reflect.TypeOf(a).String() {
case "[]uint8":
default:
}
As others have said, it's not clear what you are trying to achieve by switching on reflect.Type However, I came across this question when probably trying to do something similar, so I will give you my solution in case it answers your question.
As captncraig said, a simple type switch could be done on a interface{} variable without needing to use reflect.
func TypeSwitch(val interface{}) {
switch val.(type) {
case int:
fmt.Println("int with value", val)
case string:
fmt.Println("string with value ", val)
case []uint8:
fmt.Println("Slice of uint8 with value", val)
default:
fmt.Println("Unhandled", "with value", val)
}
}
However, going beyond this, the usefulness of reflection in the context of the original question could be in a function that accepts a struct with arbitrarily typed fields, and then uses a type switch to process the field according to its type. It is not necessary to switch directly on reflect.Type, as the type can be extracted by reflect and then a standard type switch will work. For example:
type test struct {
I int
S string
Us []uint8
}
func (t *test) SetIndexedField(index int, value interface{}) {
e := reflect.ValueOf(t).Elem()
p := e.Field(index)
v := p.Interface()
typeOfF := e.Field(index).Type()
switch v.(type) {
case int:
p.SetInt(int64(value.(int)))
case string:
p.SetString(value.(string))
case []uint8:
p.SetBytes(value.([]uint8))
default:
fmt.Println("Unsupported", typeOfF, v, value)
}
}
The following examples demonstrate the use of this function:
var t = test{10, "test string", []uint8 {1, 2, 3, 4}}
fmt.Println(t)
(&t).SetIndexedField(0, 5)
(&t).SetIndexedField(1, "new string")
(&t).SetIndexedField(2, []uint8 {8, 9})
fmt.Println(t)
(A few points on reflection in go:
It is necessary to export the struct fields for reflect to be able to use them, hence the capitalisation of the field names
In order to modify the field values, it would be necessary to use a pointer to the struct as in this example function
Elem() is used to "dereference" the pointer in reflect
)
Well, I did this by first transfer it to interface and then use the.(type)
ty := reflect.TypeOf(*c)
vl := reflect.ValueOf(*c)
for i:=0;i<ty.NumField();i++{
switch vl.Field(i).Interface().(type) {
case string:
fmt.Printf("Type: %s Value: %s \n",ty.Field(i).Name,vl.Field(i).String())
case int:
fmt.Printf("Type: %s Value: %d \n",ty.Field(i).Name,vl.Field(i).Int())
}
}
I just need a pointer to time.Time, so the code below seems invalid:
./c.go:5: cannot take the address of time.Now()
I just wonder why? Is there any way to do that except to do assignment to a variable first and take the pointer of the variable?
package main
import "time"
func main() {
_ = &time.Now()
}
The probably unsatisfying answer is "you can't do it because the spec says so." The spec says that to use & on something it has to be addressable or a compound literal, and to be addressable it has to be "a variable, pointer indirection, or slice indexing operation; or a a field selector of an addressable struct operand; or an array indexing operation of an addressable array." Function calls and method calls are definitely not on the list.
Practically speaking, it's probably because the return value of a function may not have a usable address; it may be in a register (in which case it's definitely not addressable) or on the stack (in which case it has an address, but one that won't be valid if it's put in a pointer that escapes the current scope. To guarantee addressability, Go would have to do pretty much the exact equivalent of assigning it to a variable. But Go is the kind of language that figures that if it's going to allocate storage for a variable it's going to be because you said to, not because the compiler magically decided to. So it doesn't make the result of a function addressable.
Or I could be over-thinking it and they simply didn't want to have a special case for functions that return one value versus functions that return multiple :)
You can't directly take the address of a function call (or more precisely the return value(s) of the function) as described by hobbs.
There is another way but it is ugly:
p := &[]time.Time{time.Now()}[0]
fmt.Printf("%T %p\n%v", p, p, *p)
Output (Go Playground):
*time.Time 0x10438180
2009-11-10 23:00:00 +0000 UTC
What happens here is a struct is created with a literal, containing one element (the return value of time.Now()), the slice is indexed (0th element) and the address of the 0th element is taken.
So rather just use a local variable:
t := time.Now()
p := &t
Or a helper function:
func ptr(t time.Time) *time.Time {
return &t
}
p := ptr(time.Now())
Which can also be a one-liner anonymous function:
p := func() *time.Time { t := time.Now(); return &t }()
Or as an alternative:
p := func(t time.Time) *time.Time { return &t }(time.Now())
For even more alternatives, see:
How do I do a literal *int64 in Go?
Also see related question: How can I store reference to the result of an operation in Go?
Fortunately, generics now offer quite a clean solution by defining a function only one time, that can be used on any type:
package main
func ptr[T any](x T) *T {
return &x
}
func main() {
print(ptr("foo"))
print(ptr(42))
}
Playground: https://go.dev/play/p/TgpEPKjpXX7
However, this will work only starting from Golang 1.18. For previous versions, you'll need a function for each type, as other answers suggested.
If you are having this trouble with a function you wrote, change your function to return a pointer. Even though you can't take the address of a return value, you can dereference a return value, so it will be suitable whether you want the pointer or the object.
func Add(x, y int) *int {
tmp := x + y
return &tmp
}
func main() {
fmt.Println("I want the pointer: ", Add(3, 4))
fmt.Println("I want the object: ", *Add(3, 4))
}
https://play.golang.org/p/RogRZDNGdmY
So let's say that we have a function of the following form:
func WorkMagic(obj interface{}) interface{} {
switch t := obj.(type) {
case string:
// Do string magic
default:
// Do slice magic
}
...
}
I am expecting obj to be either a string or a slice, which I can ascertain via the switch. In the case of a slice, I want to be able to do ordering work on any arbitrary slice, regardless of type. Seems like the best way to accomplish this is using the unsafe package in a similar fashion to that discussed in this article.
Here however, the function accepts a specific type of slice ([]string), whereas I would like to be able to work on any slice. So the question is, given that I am accepting an empty interface as input, how might I access the underlying slice / array using unsafe.Pointer so as to be able to loop through and modify which value is associate with which index?
You'll want to use reflection. It enables you to work generically without giving up type and memory safety like unsafe would. Read the Go blog's Laws of Reflection.
func actOnSlices(i interface{}) {
v := reflect.ValueOf(i)
for v.Kind() == reflect.Ptr { // dereference pointers
v = v.Elem()
}
if v.Kind() != reflect.Slice { // ensure you actually got a slice
panic("given argument is not a slice")
}
// do slice stuff
}
Edit to answer your second question:
Yes – this can be done: elements of a slice are adressable and hence settable. See the following working example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"reflect"
)
func main() {
s := []string{"foo", "bar"}
fmt.Println(swapIndexes(s, 0, 1)) // prints [bar foo]
}
func swapIndexes(i interface{}, x, y int) interface{} {
v := reflect.ValueOf(i)
for v.Kind() == reflect.Ptr { // dereference pointers
v = v.Elem()
}
if v.Kind() != reflect.Slice { // ensure you actually got a slice
panic("given argument is not a slice")
}
t := v.Index(x).Interface()
v.Index(x).Set(v.Index(y))
v.Index(y).Set(reflect.ValueOf(t))
return v.Interface()
}
Edit to answer your third question:
The unsafe package is not something you'll encounter much in user-land code. It exists to implement certain features (e.g. reflection, C interaction) that need to circumvent Go's safety guarantees to work. Using unsafe is unsafe, as the name suggests, because you can mess up big time without even realizing. By using unsafe, you're incurring in a big trade-off, so it better be worth it. Quoting #twotwotwo:
The downside of unsafe is that if you mess up you're in the old days of segfaults, memory corruption, and buffer-overflow security holes.
Also, as #twotwotwo suggested; it's more "Go-like" to repeat code than using reflection to achieve genericity.
To Go's type-system, []string and []int are two completely separate and unrelated types. just as int and string would be. The relation (both are slices) is obvious only to the programmer. There is no way of expressing "a slice" without saying a slice of what.
I'm trying the build a generic currying function that's look like:
package curry
import (
"fmt"
"reflect"
)
// Function
type fn interface{}
// Function parameter
type pr interface{}
// It return the curried function
func It(f fn, p ...pr) (fn, error) {
// examine the concret type of the function f
if reflect.ValueOf(f).Kind() == reflect.Func {
// Get the slice of input and output parameters type
} else {
return nil, fmt.Errorf("%s", "takes a function as a first parameter")
}
// _, _ = f, p
return nil, nil
}
Is it possible to extract the slice of input and output parameters types as []reflect.Type of the function f ?
You can use reflect.Type.In(int) and reflect.Type.Out(int), there are corresponding methods called NumIn() int and NumOut() int that give you the number of inputs/outputs.
However, keep in mind a few caveats:
To correctly extract the function for an arbitrary signature, you'll need an infinite number of cases. You'll have to switch over every single In and Out in turn to correctly get the type to extract.
You can't dynamically create a function anyway. There's no FuncOf method to go with SliceOf, MapOf, etc. You'll have to hand code the curried versions anyway.
Using reflection to emulate generics is generally considered a Bad Idea™.
If you absolutely have to do something like this, I'd heavily recommend making an interface and having each implementation do the currying itself, rather than trying to hack it "generically" for all cases, which will never work as of Go 1.2.1.
Go 1.5 will add a function that could help here.
(review 1996, commit e1c1fa2 by Dave (okdave))
// FuncOf returns the function type with the given argument and result types.
// For example if k represents int and e represents string,
// FuncOf([]Type{k}, []Type{e}, false) represents func(int) string.
//
// The variadic argument controls whether the function is variadic. FuncOf
// panics if the in[len(in)-1] does not represent a slice and variadic is
// true.
func FuncOf(in, out []Type, variadic bool) Type
The test cases include this intriguing code:
v := MakeFunc(FuncOf([]Type{TypeOf(K(""))}, []Type{TypeOf(V(0))}, false), fn)
outs := v.Call([]Value{ValueOf(K("gopher"))})