In Go there are various ways to return a struct value or slice thereof. For individual ones I've seen:
type MyStruct struct {
Val int
}
func myfunc() MyStruct {
return MyStruct{Val: 1}
}
func myfunc() *MyStruct {
return &MyStruct{}
}
func myfunc(s *MyStruct) {
s.Val = 1
}
I understand the differences between these. The first returns a copy of the struct, the second a pointer to the struct value created within the function, the third expects an existing struct to be passed in and overrides the value.
I've seen all of these patterns be used in various contexts, I'm wondering what the best practices are regarding these. When would you use which? For instance, the first one could be ok for small structs (because the overhead is minimal), the second for bigger ones. And the third if you want to be extremely memory efficient, because you can easily reuse a single struct instance between calls. Are there any best practices for when to use which?
Similarly, the same question regarding slices:
func myfunc() []MyStruct {
return []MyStruct{ MyStruct{Val: 1} }
}
func myfunc() []*MyStruct {
return []MyStruct{ &MyStruct{Val: 1} }
}
func myfunc(s *[]MyStruct) {
*s = []MyStruct{ MyStruct{Val: 1} }
}
func myfunc(s *[]*MyStruct) {
*s = []MyStruct{ &MyStruct{Val: 1} }
}
Again: what are best practices here. I know slices are always pointers, so returning a pointer to a slice isn't useful. However, should I return a slice of struct values, a slice of pointers to structs, should I pass in a pointer to a slice as argument (a pattern used in the Go App Engine API)?
tl;dr:
Methods using receiver pointers are common; the rule of thumb for receivers is, "If in doubt, use a pointer."
Slices, maps, channels, strings, function values, and interface values are implemented with pointers internally, and a pointer to them is often redundant.
Elsewhere, use pointers for big structs or structs you'll have to change, and otherwise pass values, because getting things changed by surprise via a pointer is confusing.
One case where you should often use a pointer:
Receivers are pointers more often than other arguments. It's not unusual for methods to modify the thing they're called on, or for named types to be large structs, so the guidance is to default to pointers except in rare cases.
Jeff Hodges' copyfighter tool automatically searches for non-tiny receivers passed by value.
Some situations where you don't need pointers:
Code review guidelines suggest passing small structs like type Point struct { latitude, longitude float64 }, and maybe even things a bit bigger, as values, unless the function you're calling needs to be able to modify them in place.
Value semantics avoid aliasing situations where an assignment over here changes a value over there by surprise.
Passing small structs by value can be more efficient by avoiding cache misses or heap allocations. In any case, when pointers and values perform similarly, the Go-y approach is to choose whatever provides the more natural semantics rather than squeeze out every last bit of speed.
So, Go Wiki's code review comments page suggests passing by value when structs are small and likely to stay that way.
If the "large" cutoff seems vague, it is; arguably many structs are in a range where either a pointer or a value is OK. As a lower bound, the code review comments suggest slices (three machine words) are reasonable to use as value receivers. As something nearer an upper bound, bytes.Replace takes 10 words' worth of args (three slices and an int). You can find situations where copying even large structs turns out a performance win, but the rule of thumb is not to.
For slices, you don't need to pass a pointer to change elements of the array. io.Reader.Read(p []byte) changes the bytes of p, for instance. It's arguably a special case of "treat little structs like values," since internally you're passing around a little structure called a slice header (see Russ Cox (rsc)'s explanation). Similarly, you don't need a pointer to modify a map or communicate on a channel.
For slices you'll reslice (change the start/length/capacity of), built-in functions like append accept a slice value and return a new one. I'd imitate that; it avoids aliasing, returning a new slice helps call attention to the fact that a new array might be allocated, and it's familiar to callers.
It's not always practical follow that pattern. Some tools like database interfaces or serializers need to append to a slice whose type isn't known at compile time. They sometimes accept a pointer to a slice in an interface{} parameter.
Maps, channels, strings, and function and interface values, like slices, are internally references or structures that contain references already, so if you're just trying to avoid getting the underlying data copied, you don't need to pass pointers to them. (rsc wrote a separate post on how interface values are stored).
You still may need to pass pointers in the rarer case that you want to modify the caller's struct: flag.StringVar takes a *string for that reason, for example.
Where you use pointers:
Consider whether your function should be a method on whichever struct you need a pointer to. People expect a lot of methods on x to modify x, so making the modified struct the receiver may help to minimize surprise. There are guidelines on when receivers should be pointers.
Functions that have effects on their non-receiver params should make that clear in the godoc, or better yet, the godoc and the name (like reader.WriteTo(writer)).
You mention accepting a pointer to avoid allocations by allowing reuse; changing APIs for the sake of memory reuse is an optimization I'd delay until it's clear the allocations have a nontrivial cost, and then I'd look for a way that doesn't force the trickier API on all users:
For avoiding allocations, Go's escape analysis is your friend. You can sometimes help it avoid heap allocations by making types that can be initialized with a trivial constructor, a plain literal, or a useful zero value like bytes.Buffer.
Consider a Reset() method to put an object back in a blank state, like some stdlib types offer. Users who don't care or can't save an allocation don't have to call it.
Consider writing modify-in-place methods and create-from-scratch functions as matching pairs, for convenience: existingUser.LoadFromJSON(json []byte) error could be wrapped by NewUserFromJSON(json []byte) (*User, error). Again, it pushes the choice between laziness and pinching allocations to the individual caller.
Callers seeking to recycle memory can let sync.Pool handle some details. If a particular allocation creates a lot of memory pressure, you're confident you know when the alloc is no longer used, and you don't have a better optimization available, sync.Pool can help. (CloudFlare published a useful (pre-sync.Pool) blog post about recycling.)
Finally, on whether your slices should be of pointers: slices of values can be useful, and save you allocations and cache misses. There can be blockers:
The API to create your items might force pointers on you, e.g. you have to call NewFoo() *Foo rather than let Go initialize with the zero value.
The desired lifetimes of the items might not all be the same. The whole slice is freed at once; if 99% of the items are no longer useful but you have pointers to the other 1%, all of the array remains allocated.
Copying or moving the values might cause you performance or correctness problems, making pointers more attractive. Notably, append copies items when it grows the underlying array. Pointers to slice items from before the append may not point to where the item was copied after, copying can be slower for huge structs, and for e.g. sync.Mutex copying isn't allowed. Insert/delete in the middle and sorting also move items around so similar considerations can apply.
Broadly, value slices can make sense if either you get all of your items in place up front and don't move them (e.g., no more appends after initial setup), or if you do keep moving them around but you're confident that's OK (no/careful use of pointers to items, and items are small or you've measured the perf impact). Sometimes it comes down to something more specific to your situation, but that's a rough guide.
If you can (e.g. a non-shared resource that does not need to be passed as reference), use a value. By the following reasons:
Your code will be nicer and more readable, avoiding pointer operators and null checks.
Your code will be safer against Null Pointer panics.
Your code will be often faster: yes, faster! Why?
Reason 1: you will allocate less items in the heap. Allocating/deallocating from stack is immediate, but allocating/deallocating on Heap may be very expensive (allocation time + garbage collection). You can see some basic numbers here: http://www.macias.info/entry/201802102230_go_values_vs_references.md
Reason 2: especially if you store returned values in slices, your memory objects will be more compacted in memory: looping a slice where all the items are contiguous is much faster than iterating a slice where all the items are pointers to other parts of the memory. Not for the indirection step but for the increase of cache misses.
Myth breaker: a typical x86 cache line are 64 bytes. Most structs are smaller than that. The time of copying a cache line in memory is similar to copying a pointer.
Only if a critical part of your code is slow I would try some micro-optimization and check if using pointers improves somewhat the speed, at the cost of less readability and mantainability.
Three main reasons when you would want to use method receivers as pointers:
"First, and most important, does the method need to modify the receiver? If it does, the receiver must be a pointer."
"Second is the consideration of efficiency. If the receiver is large, a big struct for instance, it will be much cheaper to use a pointer receiver."
"Next is consistency. If some of the methods of the type must have pointer receivers, the rest should too, so the method set is consistent regardless of how the type is used"
Reference : https://golang.org/doc/faq#methods_on_values_or_pointers
Edit : Another important thing is to know the actual "type" that you are sending to function. The type can either be a 'value type' or 'reference type'.
Even as slices and maps acts as references, we might want to pass them as pointers in scenarios like changing the length of the slice in the function.
A case where you generally need to return a pointer is when constructing an instance of some stateful or shareable resource. This is often done by functions prefixed with New.
Because they represent a specific instance of something and they may need to coordinate some activity, it doesn't make a lot of sense to generate duplicated/copied structures representing the same resource -- so the returned pointer acts as the handle to the resource itself.
Some examples:
func NewTLSServer(handler http.Handler) *Server -- instantiate a web server for testing
func Open(name string) (*File, error) -- return a file access handle
In other cases, pointers are returned just because the structure may be too large to copy by default:
func NewRGBA(r Rectangle) *RGBA -- allocate an image in memory
Alternatively, returning pointers directly could be avoided by instead returning a copy of a structure that contains the pointer internally, but maybe this isn't considered idiomatic:
No such examples found in the standard libraries...
Related question: Embedding in Go with pointer or with value
Regarding to struct vs. pointer return value, I got confused after reading many highly stared open source projects on github, as there are many examples for both cases, util I found this amazing article:
https://www.ardanlabs.com/blog/2014/12/using-pointers-in-go.html
"In general, share struct type values with a pointer unless the struct type has been implemented to behave like a primitive data value.
If you are still not sure, this is another way to think about. Think of every struct as having a nature. If the nature of the struct is something that should not be changed, like a time, a color or a coordinate, then implement the struct as a primitive data value. If the nature of the struct is something that can be changed, even if it never is in your program, it is not a primitive data value and should be implemented to be shared with a pointer. Don’t create structs that have a duality of nature."
Completedly convinced.
I am learning GO. According to documentation, slices are richer than arrays.
However, I am failing to grasp hypothetical use cases for slices.
What would be use case where one would use a slice instead of array?
Thanks!
This is really pretty elementary and probably should already have been covered in whatever documentation you're reading (unless it's just the language spec), but: A Go array always has a fixed size. If you always need 10 things of type T, [10]T is fine. But what if you need a variable number of things n, where n is determined at runtime?
A Go slice—which consists of two parts, a slice header and an underlying backing array—is pretty ideal for holding information needed to access a variable-sized array. Note that just declaring a slice-header variable:
var x []T
doesn't actually allocate any array of T yet: the slice header will be initialized to hold nil (converted to the right type) as the (missing) backing array, 0 as the current size, and 0 as the capacity of this array. As a result of this, the test x == nil will say that yes, x is nil. To get an actual array, you will need either:
an actual array, or
a call to make, or
use of the built-in append or similar (e.g., copy, append hidden behind some function, etc).
Since the call to make happens at runtime, it can make an array of whatever size is needed at this point. A series of calls to append can build up an array. Note that each call to append may have to allocate a new backing array, or may be able to extend the existing array in-place, depending on what's in the capacity. That's why you need x = append(x, elem) or x = append(x, elems...) and not just append(x, elem) or append(x, elems...).
The Go blog entry on slices has a lot more to say on this. I like this page more than the sequence of pages in the Go Tour starting here, but opinions vary.
Q: Is there a way, in golang, to define a function which accepts an array of arbitrary length as argument?
e.g.,
function demoArrayMagic(arr [magic]int){
....
}
I have understood that in golang, array length is part of the variable type, for this reason the following function is not going to accept one arbitrary array as input
function demoArray(arr [2]int){
....
}
This function is not going to compile with arrInput [6]int as input--i.e., demoArray(arrInput) will fail to compile.
Also the following function, which accepts a slice argument, does not accept arrays as arguments (different types, as expected):
function demoSlice(arr []int){
....
}
i.e., demoSlice(arrInput) does not compile, expects a slice not an array.
The question is, is there a way to define a function that takes arrays of arbitrary length (arrays, NOT slice)? It looks quite strange and limiting for a language to impose this constraint.
The question makes sense independently from the motivation, but, in my case, the reason behind is the following. I have a set of functions which takes as arguments data structures of type [][]int.
I noticed that GOB serialization for them is 10x slower (MB/s) than other data structures I have. I suppose that may be related to the chain of derefencing operations in slices. Moving from slices to array--i.e.,defining objects of type [10000][128]int--may improve situation (I hope).
Regards
P.s: I remind now that Go, passes/uses things 'by value', using arrays may be overkill cause golang is going to copy them lot of times. I think I'll stay with slices and I'll try to understand GOB internals a bit.
There is not. Go does not support generics.
The only way would be to use interface{}, but that would allow to pass a value of any type, not just arrays of your desired type.
Arrays in Go are "secondary". The solution is to use slices for your requirement.
One thing to note here is that you may continue to use arrays, and only slice them when you want to pass them to this function, e.g.:
func main() {
a1 := [1]int{1}
demo(a1[:])
a2 := [2]int{1, 2}
demo(a2[:])
}
func demo(s []int) {
fmt.Println("Passed:", s)
}
Output of the above (try it on the Go Playground):
Passed: [1]
Passed: [1 2]
I'm wondering if setting Delphi's array's length to 0 after use is a correct practice or not.
var
MyArray : array of TObject;
begin
SetLength(MyArray, N);
// do something with MyArray (add items and use it..)
SetLength(MyArray, 0);
end;
Is there a reason why I should set length to 0?
Assuming that MyArray is a local variable then there is no reason at all to finalise the variable in the code presented. As soon as the variable leaves scope, it will be finalised. There's nothing to be gained by doing so explicitly.
Sometimes however, you have a variable whose scope extends significantly longer than your use of the array. In those scenarios it can be useful to finalise the variable as soon as you have finished with it so that the memory is returned.
Personally I would prefer
MyArray := nil;
or
Finalize(MyArray);
which in my opinion more readily jump out as finalisation statements. Your
SetLength(MyArray, 0);
can look like you are allocating when skimming the code.
Dynamic arrays are automatically freed when nothing is referencing it.
I would prefer the following method if you need to do this manually. This looks clear to me than other methods.
MyDynamicArray = nil;
It sets the natural environment of zero reference and let the memory manager to free it in due course.
Is there an elegant way to express
val a = Array.fill(2,10) {1}
def do_to_elt(i:Int,j:Int) {
if (a.isDefinedAt(i) && a(i).isDefinedAt(j)) f(a(i)(j))
}
in scala?
I recommend that you not use arrays of arrays for 2D arrays, for three main reasons. First, it allows inconsistency: not all columns (or rows, take your pick) need to be the same size. Second, it is inefficient--you have to follow two pointers instead of one. Third, very few library functions exist that work transparently and usefully on arrays of arrays as 2D arrays.
Given these things, you should either use a library that supports 2D arrays, like scalala, or you should write your own. If you do the latter, among other things, this problem magically goes away.
So in terms of elegance: no, there isn't a way. But beyond that, the path you're starting on contains lots of inelegance; you would probably do best to step off of it quickly.
You just need to check the array at index i with isDefinedAt if it exists:
def do_to_elt(i:Int, j:Int): Unit =
if (a.isDefinedAt(i) && a(i).isDefinedAt(j)) f(a(i)(j))
EDIT: Missed that part about the elegant solution as I focused on the error in the code before your edit.
Concerning elegance: no, per se there is no way to express it in a more elegant way. Some might tell you to use the pimp-my-library-Pattern to make it look more elegant but in fact it does not in this case.
If your only use case is to execute a function with an element of a multidimensional array when the indices are valid then this code does that and you should use it. You could generalize the method by changing the signature of to take the function to apply to the element and maybe a value if the indices are invalid like this:
def do_to_elt[A](i: Int, j: Int)(f: Int => A, g: => A = ()) =
if (a.isDefinedAt(i) && a(i).isDefinedAt(j)) f(a(i)(j)) else g
but I would not change anything beyond this. This also does not look more elegant but widens your use case.
(Also: If you are working with arrays you mostly do that for performance reasons and in that case it might even be better to not use isDefinedAt but perform validity checks based on the length of the arrays.)