As far as I can tell PHP traits exist to offer pseudo multi-inheritance... and looking at them, they rather remind me of structs, except there return type is the same as functions.
ANYWAY - what can I do with a trait that I can't already do with an interface, or just another function?
A trait does not carry any type information, and therefore does not have anything in common with an interface.
class Test implements TestInterface {
use TestTrait;
}
$x = new Test;
var_dump( $x instanceof TestInterface ); // true
var_dump( $x instanceof TestTrait ); // false
All in all, traits is a way to repeat code without resorting to copy-paste.
Related
Let's say I use a certain set of boilerplate fairly regularly:
class Foo {
method abc($a: $b, $c, +#d) is pure {
use Slang::Bar;
…
}
method xyz($a: $b, $c, +#d) is pure {
use Slang::Bar;
…
}
method blarg($a: $b, $c, +#d) is pure {
use Slang::Bar;
…
}
}
I'd rather be able to just say:
class Foo is/does Bar {
bar abc { … }
bar xyz { … }
bar blarg { … }
}
And somewhere in Bar, set up the declaration for bar (or, since class Foo will itself ultimately use its own declarator, it could go somewhere else and doesn't have to be pulled out in a separate Type). How would I go about doing that?
-1. Limitations (only for packages)
The method EXPORTHOW calls .set_how on current $?LANG adding a slang to the latter.
Then it add_package_declarator to the MAIN $?LANG which adds a package_declarator method to its Actions and Grammar. It is, I think, the only "dynamic slang" (in World.nqp).
If what you want is to overwrite routine_declarator. Then you have to write a slang imitating the chain just cited.
If you accept to keep the method keyword and make the automatic signature in the class, say according to the method name, here is a way:
Note: A Package is a container (package, grammar, module, role, knowhow, enum, class, subset). If you put code inside like a method, this gets executed (I'v just tried):
0. Description (EXPORTHOW)
I would use undocumented EXPORTHOW and DECLARE in a module because I did not find a way with Phaser. Apparently it is too late even at BEGIN.
The example I give, is decorating every method in a class (even BUILDALL).
1. Lib (decorator.rakumod)
class DecoratedClassHOW is Metamodel::ClassHOW {
method add_method(Mu $obj, $name, $code_obj) {
sub wrapper ($obj, $a, $b) {
say "Before $name";
my $res = $code_obj($obj, $a, $b);
say "After $name";
return $res;
}
my $res = callwith($obj, $name, &wrapper);
return $res;
}
}
my module EXPORTHOW {
package DECLARE {
constant decorated = DecoratedClassHOW;
}
}
2. Executable
use lib '.';
use decorator-lib;
decorated Foo {
method abc($a, $b) {
say "In abc: $a:$b";
}
}
my $f = Foo.new;
$f.abc(1, 2);
3. Output
Before BUILDALL
After BUILDALL
Before abc
In abc: 1:2
After abc
4. Sources
Grammar::Debugger: exporting a symbol (grammar) overriding find_method and add_method
And npq's NQPTraceHOW::trace-on: Looping with for $_.HOW.method_table($_) creating a new hash overwriting the method cache with the (well-named) nqp::setmethcache.
To automatize the signature, play with .signature
Jnthn article on EXPORTHOW
So post on EXPORTHOW impossible with role
Base.pm:
package Base;
use Moose::Role;
sub f {
my ($self) = #_;
print "In role.\n";
}
1;
X.pm:
package X;
use Moose;
with 'Base';
around 'f' => sub {
my ($next, $self) = #_;
print "Nevermind, we are in class X.\n";
};
__PACKAGE__->meta->make_immutable;
1;
Y.pm:
package Y;
use Moose;
with 'Base';
override 'f' => sub {
my ($self) = #_;
print "Nevermind, we are in class Y.\n";
};
__PACKAGE__->meta->make_immutable;
1;
Then X does work and Y does not. It is a weird design, as override is just a special case of around and as a special case should work also.
Can anyone explain why this design decision and why it is so weird?
$ perl X.pm
$ perl Y.pm
Cannot add an override method if a local method is already present at /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/perl5/5.22/Moose/Exporter.pm line 419
Moose::override('f', 'CODE(0x9c002f8)') called at Y.pm line 9
The documentation describes override as:
An override method is a way of explicitly saying "I am overriding this method from my superclass". You can call super within this method, and it will work as expected. The same thing can be accomplished with a normal method call and the SUPER:: pseudo-package; it is really your choice.
What you are doing contradicts this definition. With a role, f is installed in your package. You are attempting to define another f in the same package.
The fact that your role is called Base indicates to me that you have some confusion when it comes to the difference between inheritance versus composition.
The purpose of around is to wrap a method in the current class regardless of whether it was implemented in the same package or inherited or composed:
Method modifiers can be used to add behavior to methods without modifying the definition of those methods.
Just a straightforward reading of these two snippets makes the distinction clear to me.
When you apply the role that defines f, that itself overrides any inherited method f. If you then say override 'f', you are declaring your intention to override f again. Well, there can only be one method f in one class. Which one should count? The one that you get by applying the role, or the one you just defined? For all intents and purposes, the methods you get from composing a role are just like methods you defined manually in the class. There is no reason a priori one should be more important than the other.
Think of this as airline travel. Think of the method modifiers as classes: First, business, economy etc. So, in first class, get_dinner_menu maybe wrapped with appetizers, sweets, desserts etc.
On the other hand, override is like changing the flight. It's as if you are saying "I want to fly on both TK 1 and UIA 213". Makes no sense.
Maybe the following script will make things a bit clearer by showing a naive implementation of around and overriding a method without using override.
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
{
package MyRole;
use Moose::Role;
sub f {
print "in role\n";
}
}
{
package X;
use Moose;
with 'MyRole';
around 'f' => sub {
my ($orig, $self) = #_;
print "In wrapper\n";
return $self->$orig( #_ );
};
{
my $f = \&f;
{
no warnings 'redefine';
*f = sub {
my ($self) = #_;
print "In wrapper wrapper\n";
return $self->$f( #_ );
}
}
}
}
{
package Y;
use Moose;
with 'MyRole';
sub f {
print "In overridden method\n";
}
}
print '=-=' x 22, "\n";
my $x = X->new;
$x->f;
print '=-=' x 22, "\n";
my $y = Y->new;
$y->f;
Output:
=-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-=
In wrapper wrapper
In wrapper
in role
=-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-=
In overridden method
I'm trying to clean up my code base by doing a better job defining interfaces and using embedded structs to reuse functionality. In my case I have many entity types that can be linked to various objects. I want to define interfaces that capture the requirements and structs that implement the interfaces which can then be embedded into the entities.
// All entities implement this interface
type Entity interface {
Identifier()
Type()
}
// Interface for entities that can link Foos
type FooLinker interface {
LinkFoo()
}
type FooLinkerEntity struct {
Foo []*Foo
}
func (f *FooLinkerEntity) LinkFoo() {
// Issue: Need to access Identifier() and Type() here
// but FooLinkerEntity doesn't implement Entity
}
// Interface for entities that can link Bars
type BarLinker interface {
LinkBar()
}
type BarLinkerEntity struct {
Bar []*Bar
}
func (b *BarLinkerEntity) LinkBar() {
// Issues: Need to access Identifier() and Type() here
// but BarLinkerEntity doesn't implement Entity
}
So my first thought was to have FooLinkerEntity and BarLinkerEntity just implement the Entity interface.
// Implementation of Entity interface
type EntityModel struct {
Id string
Object string
}
func (e *EntityModel) Identifier() { return e.Id }
func (e *EntityModel) Type() { return e.Type }
type FooLinkerEntity struct {
EntityModel
Foo []*Foo
}
type BarLinkerEntity struct {
EntityModel
Bar []*Bar
}
However, this ends up with an ambiguity error for any types that can link both Foos and Bars.
// Baz.Identifier() is ambiguous between EntityModel, FooLinkerEntity,
// and BarLinkerEntity.
type Baz struct {
EntityModel
FooLinkerEntity
BarLinkerEntity
}
What's the correct Go way to structure this type of code? Do I just do a type assertion in LinkFoo() and LinkBar() to get to Identifier() and Type()? Is there any way to get this check at compile time instead of runtime?
Go is not (quite) an object oriented language: it does not have classes and it does not have type inheritance; but it supports a similar construct called embedding both on struct level and on interface level, and it does have methods.
So you should stop thinking in OOP and start thinking in composition. Since you said in your comments that FooLinkerEntity will never be used on its own, that helps us achieve what you want in a clean way.
I will use new names and less functionality to concentrate on the problem and solution, which results in shorter code and which is also easier to understand.
The full code can be viewed and tested on the Go Playground.
Entity
The simple Entity and its implementation will look like this:
type Entity interface {
Id() int
}
type EntityImpl struct{ id int }
func (e *EntityImpl) Id() int { return e.id }
Foo and Bar
In your example FooLinkerEntity and BarLinkerEntity are just decorators, so they don't need to embed (extend in OOP) Entity, and their implementations don't need to embed EntityImpl. However, since we want to use the Entity.Id() method, we need an Entity value, which may or may not be EntityImpl, but let's not restrict their implementation. Also we may choose to embed it or make it a "regular" struct field, it doesn't matter (both works):
type Foo interface {
SayFoo()
}
type FooImpl struct {
Entity
}
func (f *FooImpl) SayFoo() { fmt.Println("Foo", f.Id()) }
type Bar interface {
SayBar()
}
type BarImpl struct {
Entity
}
func (b *BarImpl) SayBar() { fmt.Println("Bar", b.Id()) }
Using Foo and Bar:
f := FooImpl{&EntityImpl{1}}
f.SayFoo()
b := BarImpl{&EntityImpl{2}}
b.SayBar()
Output:
Foo 1
Bar 2
FooBarEntity
Now let's see a "real" entity which is an Entity (implements Entity) and has both the features provided by Foo and Bar:
type FooBarEntity interface {
Entity
Foo
Bar
SayFooBar()
}
type FooBarEntityImpl struct {
*EntityImpl
FooImpl
BarImpl
}
func (x *FooBarEntityImpl) SayFooBar() {
fmt.Println("FooBar", x.Id(), x.FooImpl.Id(), x.BarImpl.Id())
}
Using FooBarEntity:
e := &EntityImpl{3}
x := FooBarEntityImpl{e, FooImpl{e}, BarImpl{e}}
x.SayFoo()
x.SayBar()
x.SayFooBar()
Output:
Foo 3
Bar 3
FooBar 3 3 3
FooBarEntity round #2
If the FooBarEntityImpl does not need to know (does not use) the internals of the Entity, Foo and Bar implementations (EntityImpl, FooImpl and BarImpl in our cases), we may choose to embed only the interfaces and not the implementations (but in this case we can't call x.FooImpl.Id() because Foo does not implement Entity - that is an implementation detail which was our initial statement that we don't need / use it):
type FooBarEntityImpl struct {
Entity
Foo
Bar
}
func (x *FooBarEntityImpl) SayFooBar() { fmt.Println("FooBar", x.Id()) }
Its usage is the same:
e := &EntityImpl{3}
x := FooBarEntityImpl{e, &FooImpl{e}, &BarImpl{e}}
x.SayFoo()
x.SayBar()
x.SayFooBar()
Its output:
Foo 3
Bar 3
FooBar 3
Try this variant on the Go Playground.
FooBarEntity creation
Note that when creating FooBarEntityImpl, a value of Entity is to be used in multiple composite literals. Since we created only one Entity (EntityImpl) and we used this in all places, there is only one id used in different implementation classes, only a "reference" is passed to each structs, not a duplicate / copy. This is also the intended / required usage.
Since FooBarEntityImpl creation is non-trivial and error-prone, it is recommended to create a constructor-like function:
func NewFooBarEntity(id int) FooBarEntity {
e := &EntityImpl{id}
return &FooBarEntityImpl{e, &FooImpl{e}, &BarImpl{e}}
}
Note that the factory function NewFooBarEntity() returns a value of interface type and not the implementation type (good practice to be followed).
It is also a good practice to make the implementation types un-exported, and only export the interfaces, so implementation names would be entityImpl, fooImpl, barImpl, fooBarEntityImpl.
Some related questions worth checking out
What is the idiomatic way in Go to create a complex hierarchy of structs?
is it possible to call overridden method from parent struct in golang?
Can embedded struct method have knowledge of parent/child?
Go embedded struct call child method instead parent method
Seems to me having three ID in one structure with methods relying on them is even semantically incorrect. To not be ambiguous you should write some more code to my mind. For example something like this
type Baz struct {
EntityModel
Foo []*Foo
Bar []*Bar
}
func (b Baz) LinkFoo() {
(&FooLinkerEntity{b.EntityModel, b.Foo}).LinkFoo()
}
func (b Baz) LinkBar() {
(&BarLinkerEntity{b.EntityModel, b.Bar}).LinkBar()
}
I'm making use of a third party library that doesn't have any interfaces for its classes. I can use them in my structs no problem, but they have side effects that I want to avoid when unit testing.
// Somewhere there are a couple structs, with no interfaces. I don't own the code.
// Each has only one method.
type ThirdPartyEntry struct {}
func (e ThirdPartyEntry) Resolve() string {
// Do some complex stuff with side effects
return "I'm me!"
}
// This struct returns an instance of the other one.
type ThirdPartyFetcher struct {}
func (f ThirdPartyFetcher) FetchEntry() ThirdPartyEntry {
// Do some complex stuff with side effects and return an entry
return ThirdPartyEntry{}
}
// Now my code.
type AwesomeThing interface {
BeAwesome() string
}
// I have a class that makes use of the third party.
type Awesome struct {
F ThirdPartyFetcher
}
func (a Awesome) BeAwesome() string {
return strings.Repeat(a.F.FetchEntry().Resolve(), 3)
}
func NewAwesome(fetcher ThirdPartyFetcher) Awesome {
return Awesome{
F: fetcher,
}
}
func main() {
myAwesome := NewAwesome(ThirdPartyFetcher{})
log.Println(myAwesome.BeAwesome())
}
This works! But I want to write some unit tests, and so I'd like to Mock both the third party structs. To do so I believe I need interfaces for them, but since ThirdPartyFetcher returns ThirdPartyEntrys, I cannot figure out how.
I created a pair of interfaces which match up with the two third party classes. I'd like to then rewrite the Awesome struct and method to use the generic Fetcher interface. In my test, I would call NewAwesome() passing in a testFetcher, a struct which also implements the interface.
type Awesome struct {
F Fetcher
}
func NewAwesome(fetcher Fetcher) Awesome {
return Awesome{
Fetcher: fetcher,
}
}
type Entry interface {
Resolve() string
}
// Double check ThirdPartyEntry implements Entry
var _ Entry = (*ThirdPartyEntry)(nil)
type Fetcher interface {
FetchEntry() Entry
}
// Double check ThirdPartyFetcher implements Fetcher
var _ Fetcher = (*ThirdPartyFetcher)(nil)
I omit the test code because it's not relevant. This fails on the last line shown.
./main.go:49: cannot use (*ThirdPartyFetcher)(nil) (type *ThirdPartyFetcher) as type Fetcher in assignment:
*ThirdPartyFetcher does not implement Fetcher (wrong type for FetchEntry method)
have FetchEntry() ThirdPartyEntry
want FetchEntry() Entry
The signatures are different, even though I already showed that ThirdPartyEntry implements Entry. I believe this is disallowed because to would lead to something like slicing (in the polymorphic sense, not the golang sense). Is there any way for me to write a pair of interfaces? It should be the case that the Awesome class doesn't even know ThirdParty exists - it's abstracted behind the interface and injected when main calls NewAwesome.
It's not very pretty, but one way would be to:
type fetcherWrapper struct {
ThirdPartyFetcher
}
func (fw fetcherWrapper) FetchEntry() Entry {
return fw.ThirdPartyFetcher.FetchEntry()
}
I'd say mocking things that return structs vs interfaces is a relatively common problem without any great solutions apart from a lot of intermediate wrapping.
I have a struct and I would like it to be initialised with some sensible default values.
Typically, the thing to do here is to use a constructor but since go isn't really OOP in the traditional sense these aren't true objects and it has no constructors.
I have noticed the init method but that is at the package level. Is there something else similar that can be used at the struct level?
If not what is the accepted best practice for this type of thing in Go?
There are some equivalents of constructors for when the zero values can't make sensible default values or for when some parameter is necessary for the struct initialization.
Supposing you have a struct like this :
type Thing struct {
Name string
Num int
}
then, if the zero values aren't fitting, you would typically construct an instance with a NewThing function returning a pointer :
func NewThing(someParameter string) *Thing {
p := new(Thing)
p.Name = someParameter
p.Num = 33 // <- a very sensible default value
return p
}
When your struct is simple enough, you can use this condensed construct :
func NewThing(someParameter string) *Thing {
return &Thing{someParameter, 33}
}
If you don't want to return a pointer, then a practice is to call the function makeThing instead of NewThing :
func makeThing(name string) Thing {
return Thing{name, 33}
}
Reference : Allocation with new in Effective Go.
There are actually two accepted best practices:
Make the zero value of your struct a sensible default. (While this looks strange to most people coming from "traditional" oop it often works and is really convenient).
Provide a function func New() YourTyp or if you have several such types in your package functions func NewYourType1() YourType1 and so on.
Document if a zero value of your type is usable or not (in which case it has to be set up by one of the New... functions. (For the "traditionalist" oops: Someone who does not read the documentation won't be able to use your types properly, even if he cannot create objects in undefined states.)
Go has objects. Objects can have constructors (although not automatic constructors). And finally, Go is an OOP language (data types have methods attached, but admittedly there are endless definitions of what OOP is.)
Nevertheless, the accepted best practice is to write zero or more constructors for your types.
As #dystroy posted his answer before I finished this answer, let me just add an alternative version of his example constructor, which I would probably write instead as:
func NewThing(someParameter string) *Thing {
return &Thing{someParameter, 33} // <- 33: a very sensible default value
}
The reason I want to show you this version is that pretty often "inline" literals can be used instead of a "constructor" call.
a := NewThing("foo")
b := &Thing{"foo", 33}
Now *a == *b.
There are no default constructors in Go, but you can declare methods for any type. You could make it a habit to declare a method called "Init". Not sure if how this relates to best practices, but it helps keep names short without loosing clarity.
package main
import "fmt"
type Thing struct {
Name string
Num int
}
func (t *Thing) Init(name string, num int) {
t.Name = name
t.Num = num
}
func main() {
t := new(Thing)
t.Init("Hello", 5)
fmt.Printf("%s: %d\n", t.Name, t.Num)
}
The result is:
Hello: 5
I like the explanation from this blog post:
The function New is a Go convention for packages that create a core type or different types for use by the application developer. Look at how New is defined and implemented in log.go, bufio.go and cypto.go:
log.go
// New creates a new Logger. The out variable sets the
// destination to which log data will be written.
// The prefix appears at the beginning of each generated log line.
// The flag argument defines the logging properties.
func New(out io.Writer, prefix string, flag int) * Logger {
return &Logger{out: out, prefix: prefix, flag: flag}
}
bufio.go
// NewReader returns a new Reader whose buffer has the default size.
func NewReader(rd io.Reader) * Reader {
return NewReaderSize(rd, defaultBufSize)
}
crypto.go
// New returns a new hash.Hash calculating the given hash function. New panics
// if the hash function is not linked into the binary.
func (h Hash) New() hash.Hash {
if h > 0 && h < maxHash {
f := hashes[h]
if f != nil {
return f()
}
}
panic("crypto: requested hash function is unavailable")
}
Since each package acts as a namespace, every package can have their own version of New. In bufio.go multiple types can be created, so there is no standalone New function. Here you will find functions like NewReader and NewWriter.
In Go, a constructor can be implemented using a function that returns a pointer to a modified structure.
type Colors struct {
R byte
G byte
B byte
}
// Constructor
func NewColors (r, g, b byte) *Colors {
return &Color{R:r, G:g, B:b}
}
For weak dependencies and better abstraction, the constructor does not return a pointer to a structure, but an interface that this structure implements.
type Painter interface {
paintMethod1() byte
paintMethod2(byte) byte
}
type Colors struct {
R byte
G byte
B byte
}
// Constructor return intreface
func NewColors(r, g, b byte) Painter {
return &Color{R: r, G: g, B: b}
}
func (c *Colors) paintMethod1() byte {
return c.R
}
func (c *Colors) paintMethod2(b byte) byte {
return c.B = b
}
another way is;
package person
type Person struct {
Name string
Old int
}
func New(name string, old int) *Person {
// set only specific field value with field key
return &Person{
Name: name,
}
}
If you want to force the factory function usage, name your struct (your class) with the first character in lowercase. Then, it won't be possible to instantiate directly the struct, the factory method will be required.
This visibility based on first character lower/upper case work also for struct field and for the function/method. If you don't want to allow external access, use lower case.
Golang is not OOP language in its official documents.
All fields of Golang struct has a determined value(not like c/c++), so constructor function is not so necessary as cpp.
If you need assign some fields some special values, use factory functions.
Golang's community suggest New.. pattern names.
I am new to go. I have a pattern taken from other languages, that have constructors. And will work in go.
Create an init method.
Make the init method an (object) once routine. It only runs the first time it is called (per object).
func (d *my_struct) Init (){
//once
if !d.is_inited {
d.is_inited = true
d.value1 = 7
d.value2 = 6
}
}
Call init at the top of every method of this class.
This pattern is also useful, when you need late initialisation (constructor is too early).
Advantages: it hides all the complexity in the class, clients don't need to do anything.
Disadvantages: you must remember to call Init at the top of every method of the class.