1
0
mirror of https://github.com/golang/go synced 2024-11-24 23:17:57 -07:00

Deriving functions from methods

DELTA=238  (118 added, 116 deleted, 4 changed)
OCL=34653
CL=34660
This commit is contained in:
Rob Pike 2009-09-15 15:56:44 -07:00
parent 1c9e4b358f
commit 01cadde597

View File

@ -1750,7 +1750,7 @@ and a type.
Operands denote the elementary values in an expression.
<pre class="ebnf">
Operand = Literal | QualifiedIdent | "(" Expression ")" .
Operand = Literal | QualifiedIdent | MethodExpr | "(" Expression ")" .
Literal = BasicLit | CompositeLit | FunctionLit .
BasicLit = int_lit | float_lit | char_lit | StringLit .
</pre>
@ -2710,122 +2710,6 @@ to by the operand.
*pf(x)
</pre>
<p>
<font color=red>TODO: This text needs to be cleaned up and go elsewhere, there are no address
operators involved.
</font>
</p>
<p>
Methods are a form of function and a method ``value'' has a function type.
Consider the type T with method M:
</p>
<pre>
type T struct {
a int;
}
func (tp *T) M(a int) int;
var t *T;
</pre>
<p>
To construct the value of method M, one writes
</p>
<pre>
t.M
</pre>
<p>
using the variable t (not the type T).
<font color=red>TODO: It makes perfect sense to be able to say T.M (in fact, it makes more
sense then t.M, since only the type T is needed to find the method M, i.e.,
its address). TBD.
</font>
</p>
<p>
The expression t.M is a function value with type
</p>
<pre>
func (t *T, a int) int
</pre>
<p>
and may be invoked only as a function, not as a method:
</p>
<pre>
var f func (t *T, a int) int;
f = t.M;
x := f(t, 7);
</pre>
<p>
Note that one does not write t.f(7); taking the value of a method demotes
it to a function.
</p>
<p>
In general, given type T with method M and variable t of type T,
the method invocation
</p>
<pre>
t.M(args)
</pre>
<p>
is equivalent to the function call
</p>
<pre>
(t.M)(t, args)
</pre>
<p>
<font color=red>
TODO: should probably describe the effect of (t.m) under §<a href="#Expressions_if_t">Expressions if t</a>.m
denotes a method: Effect is as described above, converts into function.
</font>
</p>
<p>
If T is an interface type, the expression t.M does not determine which
underlying type's M is called until the point of the call itself. Thus given
T1 and T2, both implementing interface I with method M, the sequence
</p>
<pre>
var t1 *T1;
var t2 *T2;
var i I = t1;
m := i.M;
m(t2, 7);
</pre>
<p>
will invoke t2.M() even though m was constructed with an expression involving
t1. Effectively, the value of m is a function literal
</p>
<pre>
func (recv I, a int) {
recv.M(a);
}
</pre>
<p>
that is automatically created.
</p>
<p>
<font color=red>
TODO: Document implementation restriction: It is illegal to take the address
of a result parameter (e.g.: func f() (x int, p *int) { return 2, &amp;x }).
(TBD: is it an implementation restriction or fact?)
</font>
</p>
<h3 id="Communication_operators">Communication operators</h3>
<p>
@ -2915,10 +2799,128 @@ zero value for its type (§<a href="#The_zero_value">The zero value</a>).
</p>
<p>
<font color=red>TODO: Probably in a separate section, communication semantices
<font color=red>TODO: Probably in a separate section, communication semantics
need to be presented regarding send, receive, select, and goroutines.</font>
</p>
<h3 id="Method_expressions">Method expressions</h3>
<p>
If <code>M</code> is in the method set of type <code>T</code>,
<code>T.M</code> is a function that is callable as a regular function
with the same arguments as <code>M</code> prefixed by an additional
argument that is the receiver of the method.
</p>
<pre class="grammar">
MethodExpr = ReceiverType "." MethodName .
ReceiverType = TypeName | "(" "*" TypeName ")" .
MethodName = identifier .
</pre>
<p>
Consider a struct type <code>T</code> with two methods,
<code>Mv</code>, whose receiver is of type <code>T</code>, and
<code>Mp</code>, whose receiver is of type <code>*T</code>.
</p>
<pre>
type T struct {
a int;
}
func (tv T) Mv(a int) int { return 0 } // value receiver
func (tp *T) Mp(f float) float { return 1 } // pointer receiver
var t T;
</pre>
<p>
The expression
</p>
<pre>
T.Mv
</pre>
<p>
yields a function equivalent to <code>Mv</code> but
with an explicit receiver as its first argument; it has signature
</p>
<pre>
func (tv T, a int) int
</pre>
<p>
That function may be called normally with an explicit receiver, so
these three invocations are equivalent:
</p>
<pre>
t.Mv(7)
T.Mv(t, 7)
f := T.Mv; f(t, 7)
</pre>
<p>
Similarly, the expression
</p>
<pre>
(*T).Mp
</pre>
<p>
yields a function value representing <code>Mp</code> with signature
</p>
<pre>
func (tp *T, f float) float
</pre>
<p>
For a method with a value receiver, one can derive a function
with an explicit pointer receiver, so
</p>
<pre>
(*T).Mv
</pre>
<p>
yields a function value representing <code>Mv</code> with signature
</p>
<pre>
func (tv *T, f int) int
</pre>
<p>
Such a function indirects through the receiver to create a value
to pass as the receiver to the underlying method;
the method does not overwrite the value whose address is passed in
the function call.
</p>
<p>
The final case, a value-receiver function for a pointer-receiver method,
is illegal because pointer-receiver methods are not in the method set
of the value type.
</p>
<p>
Function values derived from methods are called with function call syntax;
the receiver is provided as the first argument to the call.
That is, given <code>f := T.Mv</code>, <code>f</code> is invoked
as <code>f(t, 7)</code> not <code>t.f(7)</code>.
To construct a function that binds the receiver, use a
<a href="Function_literals">closure</a>.
</p>
<p>
It is legal to derive a function value from a method of an interface type.
The resulting function takes an explicit receiver of that interface type.
</p>
<h3 id="Constant_expressions">Constant expressions</h3>
<p>
@ -4309,8 +4311,8 @@ mentions <code>B</code>, or mentions a function that
mentions <code>B</code>, recursively.
If two items are not interdependent, they will be initialized
in the order they appear in the source.
Since the dependency analysis is done per package, it can be
defeated if <code>A</code>'s initializer calls a function defined
Since the dependency analysis is done per package, it can produce
unspecified results if <code>A</code>'s initializer calls a function defined
in another package that refers to <code>B</code>.
</p>
<p>