Function Overloading in golang [duplicate] - struct

I'm porting a C library to Go. A C function (with varargs) is defined like this:
curl_easy_setopt(CURL *curl, CURLoption option, ...);
So I created wrapper C functions:
curl_wrapper_easy_setopt_str(CURL *curl, CURLoption option, char* param);
curl_wrapper_easy_setopt_long(CURL *curl, CURLoption option, long param);
If I define function in Go like this:
func (e *Easy)SetOption(option Option, param string) {
e.code = Code(C.curl_wrapper_easy_setopt_str(e.curl, C.CURLoption(option), C.CString(param)))
}
func (e *Easy)SetOption(option Option, param long) {
e.code = Code(C.curl_wrapper_easy_setopt_long(e.curl, C.CURLoption(option), C.long(param)))
}
The Go compiler complains:
*Easy·SetOption redeclared in this block
So does Go support function (method) overloading, or does this error mean something else?

No it does not.
See the Go Language FAQ, and specifically the section on overloading.
Method dispatch is simplified if it doesn't need to do type matching as well. Experience with other languages told us that having a variety of methods with the same name but different signatures was occasionally useful but that it could also be confusing and fragile in practice. Matching only by name and requiring consistency in the types was a major simplifying decision in Go's type system.
Update: 2016-04-07
While Go still does not have overloaded functions (and probably never will), the most useful feature of overloading, that of calling a function with optional arguments and inferring defaults for those omitted can be simulated using a variadic function, which has since been added. But this comes at the loss of type checking.
For example: http://changelog.ca/log/2015/01/30/golang

According to this, it doesn't: http://golang.org/doc/go_for_cpp_programmers.html
In the Conceptual Differences section, it says:
Go does not support function overloading and does not support user defined operators.

Even though this question is really old, what I still want to say is that there is a way to acheive something close to overloading functions. Although it may not make the code so easy to read.
Say if you want to overload the funtion Test():
func Test(a int) {
println(a);
}
func Test(a int, b string) {
println(a);
println(b);
}
The code above will cause error. However if you redefine the first Test() to Test1() and the second to Test2(), and define a new function Test() using go's ..., you would be able to call the function Test() the way it is overloaded.
code:
package main;
func Test1(a int) {
println(a);
}
func Test2(a int, b string) {
println(a);
println(b);
}
func Test(a int, bs ...string) {
if len(bs) == 0 {
Test1(a);
} else {
Test2(a, bs[0]);
}
}
func main() {
Test(1);
Test(1, "aaa");
}
output:
1
1
aaa
see more at: https://golangbyexample.com/function-method-overloading-golang/ (I'm not the author of this linked article but personally consider it useful)

No, Go doesn't have overloading.
Overloading adds compiler complexity and will likely never be added.
As Lawrence Dol mentioned, you could use a variadic function at the cost of no type checking.
Your best bet is to use generics and type constraints that were added in Go 1.18
To answer VityaSchel's question, in the comments of Lawrence's answer, of how to make a generic sum function, I've written one below.
https://go.dev/play/p/hRhInhsAJFT
package main
import "fmt"
type Number interface {
int | int8 | int16 | int32 | int64 | uint | uint8 | uint16 | uint32 | uint64 | float32 | float64
}
func Sum[number Number](a number, b number) number {
return a + b
}
func main() {
var a float64 = 5.1
var b float64 = 3.2
println(Sum(a, b))
var a2 int = 5
var b2 int = 3
println(Sum(a2, b2))
}

Related

Difference between String and StaticString

I was browsing the docs, and I found StaticString. It states:
An simple string designed to represent text that is "knowable at compile-time".
I originally thought that String has the same behaviour as NSString, which is known at compile time, but it looks like that I was wrong. So my question is when should we use StaticString instead of a String, and is the only difference is that StaticString is known at compile-time?
One thing I found is
var a: String = "asdf" //"asdf"
var b: StaticString = "adsf" //{(Opaque Value), (Opaque Value), (Opaque Value)}
sizeofValue(a) //24
sizeofValue(b) //17
So it looks like StaticString has a little bit less memory footprint.
It appears that StaticString can hold string literals. You can't assign a variable of type String to it, and it can't be mutated (with +=, for example).
"Knowable at compile time" doesn't mean that the value held by the variable will be determined at compile time, just that any value assigned to it is known at compile time.
Consider this example which does work:
var str: StaticString
for _ in 1...10 {
switch arc4random_uniform(3) {
case 0: str = "zero"
case 1: str = "one"
case 2: str = "two"
default: str = "default"
}
print(str)
}
Any time you can give Swift more information about how a variable is to be used, it can optimize the code using it. By restricting a variable to StaticString, Swift knows the variable won't be mutated so it might be able to store it more efficiently, or access the individual characters more efficiently.
In fact, StaticString could be implemented with just an address pointer and a length. The address it points to is just the place in the static code where the string is defined. A StaticString doesn't need to be reference counted since it doesn't (need to) exist in the heap. It is neither allocated nor deallocated, so no reference count is needed.
"Knowable at compile time" is pretty strict. Even this doesn't work:
let str: StaticString = "hello " + "world"
which fails with error:
error: 'String' is not convertible to 'StaticString'
StaticString is knowable at compile time. This can lead to optimizations. Example:
EDIT: This part doesn't work, see edit below
Suppose you have a function that calculates an Int for some String values for some constants that you define at compile time.
let someString = "Test"
let otherString = "Hello there"
func numberForString(string: String) -> Int {
return string.stringValue.unicodeScalars.reduce(0) { $0 * 1 << 8 + Int($1.value) }
}
let some = numberForString(someString)
let other = numberForString(otherString)
Like this, the function would be executed with "Test" and "Hello there" when it really gets called in the program, when the app starts for example. Definitely at runtime. However if you change your function to take a StaticString
func numberForString(string: StaticString) -> Int {
return string.stringValue.unicodeScalars.reduce(0) { $0 * 1 << 8 + Int($1.value) }
}
the compiler knows that the passed in StaticString is knowable at compile time, so guess what it does? It runs the function right at compile time (How awesome is that!). I once read an article about that, the author inspected the generated assembly and he actually found the already computed numbers.
As you can see this can be useful in some cases like the one mentioned, to not decrease runtime performance for stuff that can be done at compile time.
EDIT: Dániel Nagy and me had a conversation. The above example of mine doesn't work because the function stringValue of StaticString can't be known at compile time (because it returns a String). Here is a better example:
func countStatic(string: StaticString) -> Int {
return string.byteSize // Breakpoint here
}
func count(string: String) -> Int {
return string.characters.count // Breakpoint here
}
let staticString : StaticString = "static string"
let string : String = "string"
print(countStatic(staticString))
print(count(string))
In a release build only the second breakpoint gets triggered whereas if you change the first function to
func countStatic(string: StaticString) -> Int {
return string.stringValue.characters.count // Breakpoint here
}
both breakpoints get triggered.
Apparently there are some methods which can be done at compile time while other can't. I wonder how the compiler figures this out actually.

duck typing in D

I'm new to D, and I was wondering whether it's possible to conveniently do compile-time-checked duck typing.
For instance, I'd like to define a set of methods, and require that those methods be defined for the type that's being passed into a function. It's slightly different from interface in D because I wouldn't have to declare that "type X implements interface Y" anywhere - the methods would just be found, or compilation would fail. Also, it would be good to allow this to happen on any type, not just structs and classes. The only resource I could find was this email thread, which suggests that the following approach would be a decent way to do this:
void process(T)(T s)
if( __traits(hasMember, T, "shittyNameThatProbablyGetsRefactored"))
// and presumably something to check the signature of that method
{
writeln("normal processing");
}
... and suggests that you could make it into a library call Implements so that the following would be possible:
struct Interface {
bool foo(int, float);
static void boo(float);
...
}
static assert (Implements!(S, Interface));
struct S {
bool foo(int i, float f) { ... }
static void boo(float f) { ... }
...
}
void process(T)(T s) if (Implements!(T, Interface)) { ... }
Is is possible to do this for functions which are not defined in a class or struct? Are there other/new ways to do it? Has anything similar been done?
Obviously, this set of constraints is similar to Go's type system. I'm not trying to start any flame wars - I'm just using D in a way that Go would also work well for.
This is actually a very common thing to do in D. It's how ranges work. For instance, the most basic type of range - the input range - must have 3 functions:
bool empty(); //Whether the range is empty
T front(); // Get the first element in the range
void popFront(); //pop the first element off of the range
Templated functions then use std.range.isInputRange to check whether a type is a valid range. For instance, the most basic overload of std.algorithm.find looks like
R find(alias pred = "a == b", R, E)(R haystack, E needle)
if (isInputRange!R &&
is(typeof(binaryFun!pred(haystack.front, needle)) : bool))
{ ... }
isInputRange!R is true if R is a valid input range, and is(typeof(binaryFun!pred(haystack.front, needle)) : bool) is true if pred accepts haystack.front and needle and returns a type which is implicitly convertible to bool. So, this overload is based entirely on static duck typing.
As for isInputRange itself, it looks something like
template isInputRange(R)
{
enum bool isInputRange = is(typeof(
{
R r = void; // can define a range object
if (r.empty) {} // can test for empty
r.popFront(); // can invoke popFront()
auto h = r.front; // can get the front of the range
}));
}
It's an eponymous template, so when it's used, it gets replaced with the symbol with its name, which in this case is an enum of type bool. And that bool is true if the type of the expression is non-void. typeof(x) results in void if the expression is invalid; otherwise, it's the type of the expression x. And is(y) results in true if y is non-void. So, isInputRange will end up being true if the code in the typeof expression compiles, and false otherwise.
The expression in isInputRange verifies that you can declare a variable of type R, that R has a member (be it a function, variable, or whatever) named empty which can be used in a condition, that R has a function named popFront which takes no arguments, and that R has a member front which returns a value. This is the API expected of an input range, and the expression inside of typeof will compile if R follows that API, and therefore, isInputRange will be true for that type. Otherwise, it will be false.
D's standard library has quite a few such eponymous templates (typically called traits) and makes heavy use of them in its template constraints. std.traits in particular has quite a few of them. So, if you want more examples of how such traits are written, you can look in there (though some of them are fairly complicated). The internals of such traits are not always particularly pretty, but they do encapsulate the duck typing tests nicely so that template constraints are much cleaner and more understandable (they'd be much, much uglier if such tests were inserted in them directly).
So, that's the normal approach for static duck typing in D. It does take a bit of practice to figure out how to write them well, but that's the standard way to do it, and it works. There have been people who have suggested trying to come up with something similar to your Implements!(S, Interface) suggestion, but nothing has really come of that of yet, and such an approach would actually be less flexible, making it ill-suited for a lot of traits (though it could certainly be made to work with basic ones). Regardless, the approach that I've described here is currently the standard way to do it.
Also, if you don't know much about ranges, I'd suggest reading this.
Implements!(S, Interface) is possible but did not get enough attention to get into standard library or get better language support. Probably if I won't be the only one telling it is the way to go for duck typing, we will have a chance to have it :)
Proof of concept implementation to tinker around:
http://dpaste.1azy.net/6d8f2dc4
import std.traits;
bool Implements(T, Interface)()
if (is(Interface == interface))
{
foreach (method; __traits(allMembers, Interface))
{
foreach (compareTo; MemberFunctionsTuple!(Interface, method))
{
bool found = false;
static if ( !hasMember!(T, method) )
{
pragma(msg, T, " has no member ", method);
return false;
}
else
{
foreach (compareWhat; __traits(getOverloads, T, method))
{
if (is(typeof(compareTo) == typeof(compareWhat)))
{
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (!found)
{
return false;
}
}
}
}
return true;
}
interface Test
{
bool foo(int, double);
void boo();
}
struct Tested
{
bool foo(int, double);
// void boo();
}
pragma(msg, Implements!(Tested, Test)());
void main()
{
}

Conventions to specifying digital fixed point binary numbers with macros

I was wondering if there an established convention to specifying fixed point binary numbers in decimal format (with the use of a macro). I am not sure if this possible in C/C++, but perhaps this is implemented in some language(s) and there is a notational standard like 0x000000,1.2f,1.2d,1l,etc
Take this example for instance:
I am using Q15.16 for instance, but would like to have the convenience of specifying numbers in decimal format, perhaps something like this:
var num:Int32=1.2fp;
Presumably, the easiest way with regards to Haxe macros, numbers can be initialized with a function:
#:macro
fp_from_float(1.2);
But it would be nice to have a shorthand notation.
Have you seen Luca's Fixed Point example with Haxe 3 and Abstracts?
It's here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/haxelang/JsiWvl-c0v4
Summing it up, with the new Haxe 3 abstract types, you can define a type that will be compiled as an Int:
abstract Fixed16(Int)
{
inline function new(x:Int) this = x;
}
You can also define "conversion functions", which will allow you to automatically convert a float into Fixed16:
#:from public static inline function fromf(x:Float) {
#if debug
if (x >= 32768.0 || x < -32768.0) throw "Conversion to Fixed16 will overflow";
#end
return new Fixed16(Std.int(x*65536.0));
}
The secret here is the #:from metadata. With this code, you will already be able to declare fixed types like this:
var x:Fixed16 = 1.2;
Luca's already defined some operators, to make working with them easier, like:
#:op(A+B) public inline static function add(f:Fixed16, g:Fixed16) {
#if debug
var fr:Float = f.raw();
var gr:Float = g.raw();
if (fr+gr >= 2147483648.0 || fr+gr < -2147483648.0) throw "Addition of Fixed16 values will overflow";
#end
return new Fixed16(f.raw()+g.raw());
}
Again, the secret here is in #:op(A+B) metadata, which will annotate that this function may be called when handling addition. The complete GIST code is available at https://gist.github.com/deltaluca/5413225 , and you can learn more about abstracts at http://haxe.org/manual/abstracts

Boost Phoenix: Binding to reference members of structures?

I would like to use Boost Phoenix to generate a lambda function for use in a std::find_if operation on a structure that contains reference-type members. A contrived example is as follows:
struct MyStruct
{
MyStruct() : x(0) {}
int& x;
};
std::vector<MyStruct> AllStructs;
// Search the array for an element for which x == 5
const std::vector<MyStruct>::const_iterator& it =
find_if(
AllStructs.begin(),
AllStructs.end(),
bind(&MyStruct::x, arg1) == 5
);
If MyStruct::x is of type int instead of int&, it compiles fine. But with the reference member I get a "pointer to reference member is illegal" error.
From poking around on the net, it seems like I need to use Phoenix's 'ref' functionality, but I can't seem to figure out the required syntax.
Does anyone know how to get this to work for type 'int&' ?
Sorry that this is far too late, but for future reference, you can use a member pointer:
std::vector<MyStruct>::const_iterator it =
find_if(AllStructs.begin(), AllStructs.end(),
(&boost::phoenix::arg_names::arg1)->*&MyStruct::x == 5
);
You cannot create a pointer to a reference member, just as you cannot create a pointer to a reference. The answer from Daniel James could work only if x was a plain int, rather than int&. See phoenix.modules.operator.member_pointer_operator also.

Any programming language with "strange" function call?

I was wondering, is there any programming language where you can have function calls like this:
function_name(parameter1)function_name_continued(parameter2);
or
function_name(param1)function_continued(param2)...function_continued(paramN);
For example you could have this function call:
int dist = distanceFrom(cityA)to(cityB);
if you have defined distanceFromto function like this:
int distanceFrom(city A)to(city B)
{
// find distance between city A and city B
// ...
return distance;
}
As far as I know, in C, Java and SML programming languages, this cannot be done.
Are you aware of any programming language that let's you define and call
functions in this way?
It looks an awful lot like Objective-C
- (int)distanceFrom:(City *)cityA to:(City *)cityB {
// woah!
}
Sounds a lot like Smalltalk's syntax, (which would explain Objective-C's syntax - see kubi's answer).
Example:
dist := metric distanceFrom: cityA to: cityB
where #distanceFrom:to: is a method on some object called metric.
So you have "function calls" (they're really message sends) like
'hello world' indexOf: $o startingAt: 6. "$o means 'the character literal o"
EDIT: I'd said "Really, #distanceFrom:to: should be called #distanceTo: on a City class, but anyway." Justice points out that this couples a City to a Metric, which is Bad. There are good reasons why you might want to vary the metric - aeroplanes might use a geodesic while cars might use a shortest path based on the road network.)
For the curious, Agda2 has a similar, very permissive syntax. The following is valid code:
data City : Set where
London : City
Paris : City
data Distance : Set where
_km : ℕ → Distance
from_to_ : City → City → Distance
from London to London = 0 km
from London to Paris = 342 km
from Paris to London = 342 km
from Paris to Paris = 0 km
If
from Paris to London
is evaluated, the result is
342 km
Looks a lot like a fluent interface or method chaining to me.
In Python, you can explicitly pass the name of the arguments you're calling the function with, which lets you pass them in a different order or skip optional arguments:
>>> l = [3,5,1,2,4]
>>> print l.sort.__doc__
L.sort(cmp=None, key=None, reverse=False) -- stable sort *IN PLACE*;
cmp(x, y) -> -1, 0, 1
>>> l.sort (reverse=True)
>>> l
[5, 4, 3, 2, 1]
This looks a lot like what the Objective C syntax is doing, tagging each argument to a function with its name.
C# 4.0's Named and Optional Arguments feature allows you to achieve something pretty similar:
public static int Distance(string from, string to, string via = "")
{
...
}
public static void Main()
{
int distance;
distance = Distance(from: "New York", to: "Tokyo");
distance = Distance(to: "Tokyo", from: "New York");
distance = Distance(from: "New York", via: "Athens", to: "Tokyo");
}
(see my very favourite personal effort - the final C++ approach at the end of this answer)
Language One
Objective-C but the calling syntax is [object message] so would look like:
int dist = [cities distanceFrom:cityA to:cityB];
if you have defined distanceFromto function like this, within a cities object:
- (int)distanceFrom:(City *)cityA to:(City *)cityB
{
// find distance between city A and city B
// ...
return distance;
}
Language Two
I also suspect you could achieve something very close to this in the IO Language but I'm only just looking at it. You may also want to read about it in comparison to other languages in Seven Languages in Seven Weeks which has a free excerpt about IO.
Language Three
There's an idiom ("chaining") in C++ where you return temporary objects or the current object that is used to replace keyword arguments, according to The Design and Evolution of C++ and looks like this:
int dist = distanceFrom(cityA).to(cityB);
if you have defined distanceFrom function like this, with a little helper object. Note that inline functions make this kind of thing compile to very efficient code.
class DistanceCalculator
{
public:
DistanceCalculator(City* from) : fromCity(from) {}
int to(City * toCity)
{
// find distance between fromCity and toCity
// ...
return distance;
}
private:
City* fromCity;
};
inline DistanceCalculator distanceFrom(City* from)
{
return DistanceCalculator(from);
}
Duhh, I was in a hurry earlier, realised I can refactor to just use a temporary object to give the same syntax:
class distanceFrom
{
public:
distanceFrom(City* from) : fromCity(from) {}
int to(City * toCity)
{
// find distance between fromCity and toCity
// ...
return distance;
}
private:
City* fromCity;
};
MY FAVOURITE
and here's an even more inspired C++ version that allows you to write
int dist = distanceFrom cityA to cityB;
or even
int dist = distanceFrom cityA to cityB to cityC;
based on a wonderfully C++ ish combination of #define and classes:
#include <vector>
#include <numeric>
class City;
#define distanceFrom DistanceCalculator() <<
#define to <<
class DistanceCalculator
{
public:
operator int()
{
// find distance between chain of cities
return std::accumulate(cities.begin(), cities.end(), 0);
}
DistanceCalculator& operator<<(City* aCity)
{
cities.push_back(aCity);
return *this;
}
private:
std::vector<City*> cities;
};
NOTE this may look like a useless exercise but in some contexts it can be very useful to give people a domain-specific language in C++ which they compile alongside libraries. We used a similar approach with Python for geo-modeling scientists at the CSIRO.
You can do this in C, albeit unsafely:
struct Arg_s
{
int from;
int to;
};
int distance_f(struct Arg_s args)
{
return args.to - args.from;
}
#define distance(...) distance_f( ((struct Arg_s){__VA_ARGS__}) )
#define from_ .from =
#define to_ .to =
uses compound literals and designated initializers.
printf("5 to 7 = %i\n",distance(from_ 5, to_ 7));
// 5 to 7 = 2
3 of the 4 confederated languages from RemObjects in their Elements Compiler have this capability in precisely the OP's requested syntax (to support Objective-C runtime, but made available to all operating systems).
in Hydrogene (an extended C#)
https://docs.elementscompiler.com/Hydrogene/LanguageExtensions/MultiPartMethodNames
in Iodine (an extended Java)
https://docs.elementscompiler.com/Iodine/LanguageExtensions/MultiPartMethodNames
in Oxygene (an extended ObjectPascal), scroll down to Multi-Part Method Names section
https://docs.elementscompiler.com/Oxygene/Members/Methods
This looks similar to function overloading (C++/C#)/default parameters (VB).
Default Parameters allow the person defining the function to set defaults for the latter parameters:
e.g. c# overloading:
int CalculateDistance(city A, city B, city via1, city via2)
{....}
int CalculateDistance(city A, city B)
{
return CalculateDistance(city A, city B, null, null)
}
You can use a member function for this.
cityA.distance_to(cityB);
That's valid code in C++, C(with a little tweaking), C#, Java. Using method chains, you can do:
cityA.something(cityB).something(cityC).something(cityD).something(cityE);
In SML you could simply make "to" some value (unit, for example), and "distanceFrom" a curried function that takes three parameters. For example:
val to = ()
fun distanceFrom x _ y = (* implementation function body *)
val foo = distanceFrom cityA to cityB
You could also take advantage of the fact that SML doesn't enforce naming conventions on datataype constructors (much to many peoples' annoyance), so if you want to make sure that the type system enforces your custom syntax:
datatype comp = to
fun distanceFrom x to y = (* implementation *)
val foo = distanceFrom cityA to cityB (* works *)
val foo' = distanceFrom cityA cityB (* whoops, forgot 'to' - type error! *)
You could do this in Scheme or LISP using macros.
The form will be something like:
(DISTANCE-FROM city-a TO city-b)
The symbols in uppercase denotes syntax.
You could even do something like 'named parameters':
(DISTANCE TO city-a FROM city-b)
(DISTANCE FROM city-a TO city-b)
Tcl allows you to do something like this:
proc distance {from cityA to cityB} {...}
set distance [distance from "Chicago IL" to "Tulsa OK"]
I'm not sure if that's quite what you are thinking of though.
You can do it in Java, Use Builder pattern that appears in the book Effective Java by Joshua Bosch (this is second time I put this link in SO, I still didn't use that patern, but looks great)
Well, in Felix you can implement this in two steps: first, you write an ordinary function. Then, you can extend the grammar and map some of the new non-terminals to the function.
This is a bit heavyweight compared to what you might want (welcome to help make it easier!!) I think this does what you want and a whole lot more!
I will give a real example because the whole of the Felix language is actually defined by this technique (below x is the non-terminal for expressions, the p in x[p] is a precedence code):
// alternate conditional
x[sdollar_apply_pri] := x[stuple_pri] "unless" x[let_pri]
"then" x[sdollar_apply_pri] =>#
"`(ast_cond ,_sr ((ast_apply ,_sr (lnot ,_3)) ,_1 ,_5))";
Here's a bit more:
// indexes and slices
x[sfactor_pri] := x[sfactor_pri] "." "[" sexpr "]" =>#
"`(ast_apply ,_sr (,(noi 'subscript) (,_1 ,_4)))";
x[sfactor_pri] := x[sfactor_pri] "." "[" sexpr "to" sexpr "]" =>#
"`(ast_apply ,_sr (,(noi 'substring) (,_1 ,_4 ,_6)))";
x[sfactor_pri] := x[sfactor_pri] "." "[" sexpr "to" "]" =>#
"`(ast_apply ,_sr (,(noi 'copyfrom) (,_1 ,_4)))";
x[sfactor_pri] := x[sfactor_pri] "." "[" "to" sexpr "]" =>#
"`(ast_apply ,_sr (,(noi 'copyto) (,_1 ,_5)))";
The Felix grammar is ordinary user code. In the examples the grammar actions are written in Scheme. The grammar is GLR. It allows "context sensitive keywords", that is, identifiers that are keywords in certain contexts only, which makes it easy to invent new constructs without worrying about breaking existing code.
Perhaps you would like to examine Felix Grammar Online.

Resources