From 6652b0b86639a6a59e038bcb85b18fd1c1f25a95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Johan Euphrosine
+Reflection in computing is the
+ability of a program to examine its own structure, particularly
+through types; it's a form of metaprogramming. It's also a great
+source of confusion.
+
+In this article we attempt to clarify things by explaining how
+reflection works in Go. Each language's reflection model is
+different (and many languages don't support it at all), but
+this article is about Go, so for the rest of this article the word
+"reflection" should be taken to mean "reflection in Go".
+ Types and interfaces
+Because reflection builds on the type system, let's start with a
+refresher about types in Go.
+
+Go is statically typed. Every variable has a static type, that is,
+exactly one type known and fixed at compile time:
+then
+One important category of type is interface types, which represent
+fixed sets of methods. An interface variable can store any concrete
+(non-interface) value as long as that value implements the
+interface's methods. A well-known pair of examples is
+
+Any type that implements a
+It's important to be clear that whatever concrete value
+
+An extremely important example of an interface type is the empty
+interface:
+
+It represents the empty set of methods and is satisfied by any
+value at all, since any value has zero or more methods.
+
+Some people say that Go's interfaces are dynamically typed, but
+that is misleading. They are statically typed: a variable of
+interface type always has the same static type, and even though at
+run time the value stored in the interface variable may change
+type, that value will always satisfy the interface.
+
+We need to be precise about all this because reflection and
+interfaces are closely related.
+ The representation of an interface
+Russ Cox has written a
+detailed blog post about the representation of interface values
+in Go. It's not necessary to repeat the full story here, but a
+simplified summary is in order.
+
+A variable of interface type stores a pair: the concrete value
+assigned to the variable, and that value's type descriptor.
+To be more precise, the value is the underlying concrete data item
+that implements the interface and the type describes the full type
+of that item. For instance, after
+
+
+The expression in this assignment is a type assertion; what it
+asserts is that the item inside
+Continuing, we can do this:
+
+and our empty interface value
+(We don't need a type assertion here because it's known statically
+that
+One important detail is that the pair inside an interface always
+has the form (value, concrete type) and cannot have the form
+(value, interface type). Interfaces do not hold interface
+values.
+
+Now we're ready to reflect.
+ The first law of reflection 1. Reflection goes from interface value to reflection object.
+At the basic level, reflection is just a mechanism to examine the
+type and value pair stored inside an interface variable. To get
+started, there are two types we need to know about in
+package reflect:
+Typeand
+Value. Those two types
+give access to the contents of an interface variable, and two
+simple functions, called
+Let's start with
+This program prints
+
+You might be wondering where the interface is here, since the
+program looks like it's passing the
+When we call
+The
+prints
+
+Both
+prints
+
+There are also methods like
+The reflection library has a couple of properties worth singling
+out. First, to keep the API simple, the "getter" and "setter"
+methods of
+The second property is that the
+the The second law of reflection 2. Reflection goes from reflection object to interface
+value.
+Like physical reflection, reflection in Go generates its own
+inverse.
+
+Given a
+As a consequence we can say
+
+to print the
+We can do even better, though. The arguments to
+
+(Why not
+and get in this case
+
+Again, there's no need to type-assert the result of
+
+In short, the
+Reiterating: Reflection goes from interface values to reflection
+objects and back again.
+ The third law of reflection 3. To modify a reflection object, the value must be settable.
+The third law is the most subtle and confusing, but it's easy
+enough to understand if we start from first principles.
+
+Here is some code that does not work, but is worth studying.
+
+If you run this code, it will panic with the cryptic message
+
+The problem is not that the value
+The
+prints
+
+It is an error to call a
+Settability is a bit like addressability, but stricter. It's the
+property that a reflection object can modify the actual storage
+that was used to create the reflection object. Settability is
+determined by whether the reflection object holds the original
+item. When we say
+
+we pass a copy of
+were allowed to succeed, it would not update
+If this seems bizarre, it's not. It's actually a familiar situation
+in unusual garb. Think of passing
+We would not expect
+
+This is straightforward and familiar, and reflection works the same
+way. If we want to modify
+Let's do that. First we initialize
+The output so far is
+
+The reflection object
+Now
+and since it represents
+The output, as expected, is
+
+Reflection can be hard to understand but it's doing exactly what
+the language does, albeit through reflection Structs
+In our previous example
+Here's a simple example that analyzes a struct value,
+
+The output of this program is
+
+There's one more point about settability introduced in
+passing here: the field names of
+Because
+And here's the result:
+
+If we modified the program so that Conclusion
+Here again are the laws of reflection:
+
+Once you understand these laws reflection in Go becomes much easier
+to use, although it remains subtle. It's a powerful tool that
+should be used with care and avoided unless strictly
+necessary.
+
+There's plenty more to reflection that we haven't covered —
+sending and receiving on channels, allocating memory, using slices
+and maps, calling methods and functions — but this post is
+long enough. We'll cover some of those topics in a later
+article.
+
+Reflection in computing is the
+ability of a program to examine its own structure, particularly
+through types; it's a form of metaprogramming. It's also a great
+source of confusion.
+
+In this article we attempt to clarify things by explaining how
+reflection works in Go. Each language's reflection model is
+different (and many languages don't support it at all), but
+this article is about Go, so for the rest of this article the word
+"reflection" should be taken to mean "reflection in Go".
+ Types and interfaces
+Because reflection builds on the type system, let's start with a
+refresher about types in Go.
+
+Go is statically typed. Every variable has a static type, that is,
+exactly one type known and fixed at compile time:
+then
+One important category of type is interface types, which represent
+fixed sets of methods. An interface variable can store any concrete
+(non-interface) value as long as that value implements the
+interface's methods. A well-known pair of examples is
+
+Any type that implements a
+It's important to be clear that whatever concrete value
+
+An extremely important example of an interface type is the empty
+interface:
+
+It represents the empty set of methods and is satisfied by any
+value at all, since any value has zero or more methods.
+
+Some people say that Go's interfaces are dynamically typed, but
+that is misleading. They are statically typed: a variable of
+interface type always has the same static type, and even though at
+run time the value stored in the interface variable may change
+type, that value will always satisfy the interface.
+
+We need to be precise about all this because reflection and
+interfaces are closely related.
+ The representation of an interface
+Russ Cox has written a
+detailed blog post about the representation of interface values
+in Go. It's not necessary to repeat the full story here, but a
+simplified summary is in order.
+
+A variable of interface type stores a pair: the concrete value
+assigned to the variable, and that value's type descriptor.
+To be more precise, the value is the underlying concrete data item
+that implements the interface and the type describes the full type
+of that item. For instance, after
+
+
+The expression in this assignment is a type assertion; what it
+asserts is that the item inside
+Continuing, we can do this:
+
+and our empty interface value
+(We don't need a type assertion here because it's known statically
+that
+One important detail is that the pair inside an interface always
+has the form (value, concrete type) and cannot have the form
+(value, interface type). Interfaces do not hold interface
+values.
+
+Now we're ready to reflect.
+ The first law of reflection 1. Reflection goes from interface value to reflection object.
+At the basic level, reflection is just a mechanism to examine the
+type and value pair stored inside an interface variable. To get
+started, there are two types we need to know about in
+package reflect:
+Typeand
+Value. Those two types
+give access to the contents of an interface variable, and two
+simple functions, called
+Let's start with
+This program prints
+
+You might be wondering where the interface is here, since the
+program looks like it's passing the
+When we call
+The
+prints
+
+Both
+prints
+
+There are also methods like
+The reflection library has a couple of properties worth singling
+out. First, to keep the API simple, the "getter" and "setter"
+methods of
+The second property is that the
+the The second law of reflection 2. Reflection goes from reflection object to interface
+value.
+Like physical reflection, reflection in Go generates its own
+inverse.
+
+Given a
+As a consequence we can say
+
+to print the
+We can do even better, though. The arguments to
+
+(Why not
+and get in this case
+
+Again, there's no need to type-assert the result of
+
+In short, the
+Reiterating: Reflection goes from interface values to reflection
+objects and back again.
+ The third law of reflection 3. To modify a reflection object, the value must be settable.
+The third law is the most subtle and confusing, but it's easy
+enough to understand if we start from first principles.
+
+Here is some code that does not work, but is worth studying.
+
+If you run this code, it will panic with the cryptic message
+
+The problem is not that the value
+The
+prints
+
+It is an error to call a
+Settability is a bit like addressability, but stricter. It's the
+property that a reflection object can modify the actual storage
+that was used to create the reflection object. Settability is
+determined by whether the reflection object holds the original
+item. When we say
+
+we pass a copy of
+were allowed to succeed, it would not update
+If this seems bizarre, it's not. It's actually a familiar situation
+in unusual garb. Think of passing
+We would not expect
+
+This is straightforward and familiar, and reflection works the same
+way. If we want to modify
+Let's do that. First we initialize
+The output so far is
+
+The reflection object
+Now
+and since it represents
+The output, as expected, is
+
+Reflection can be hard to understand but it's doing exactly what
+the language does, albeit through reflection Structs
+In our previous example
+Here's a simple example that analyzes a struct value,
+
+The output of this program is
+
+There's one more point about settability introduced in
+passing here: the field names of
+Because
+And here's the result:
+
+If we modified the program so that Conclusion
+Here again are the laws of reflection:
+
+Once you understand these laws reflection in Go becomes much easier
+to use, although it remains subtle. It's a powerful tool that
+should be used with care and avoided unless strictly
+necessary.
+
+There's plenty more to reflection that we haven't covered —
+sending and receiving on channels, allocating memory, using slices
+and maps, calling methods and functions — but this post is
+long enough. We'll cover some of those topics in a later
+article.
+int
,
+float32
, *MyType
, []byte
,
+and so on. If we declare
+type MyInt int
+
+var i int
+var j MyInt
+
+i
has type int
and j
+has type MyInt
. The variables i
and
+j
have distinct static types and, although they have
+the same underlying type, they cannot be assigned to one another
+without a conversion.
+io.Reader
and io.Writer
, the types
+Reader
and Writer
from the io package:
+// Reader is the interface that wraps the basic Read method.
+type Reader interface {
+ Read(p []byte) (n int, err error)
+}
+
+// Writer is the interface that wraps the basic Write method.
+type Writer interface {
+ Write(p []byte) (n int, err error)
+}
+
+Read
(or
+Write
) method with this signature is said to implement
+io.Reader
(or io.Writer
). For the
+purposes of this discussion, that means that a variable of type
+io.Reader
can hold any value whose type has a
+Read
method:
+ var r io.Reader
+ r = os.Stdin
+ r = bufio.NewReader(r)
+ r = new(bytes.Buffer)
+ // and so on
+
+r
may hold, r
's type is always
+io.Reader
: Go is statically typed and the static type
+of r
is io.Reader
.
+interface{}
+
+
+ var r io.Reader
+ tty, err := os.OpenFile("/dev/tty", os.O_RDWR, 0)
+ if err != nil {
+ return nil, err
+ }
+ r = tty
+
+r
contains, schematically, the (value, type) pair,
+(tty
, *os.File
). Notice that the type
+*os.File
implements methods other than
+Read
; even though the interface value provides access
+only to the Read
method, the value inside carries all
+the type information about that value. That's why we can do things
+like this:
+ var w io.Writer
+ w = r.(io.Writer)
+
+r
also implements
+io.Writer
, and so we can assign it to w
.
+After the assignment, w
will contain the pair
+(tty
, *os.File
). That's the same pair as
+was held in r
. The static type of the interface
+determines what methods may be invoked with an interface variable,
+even though the concrete value inside may have a larger set of
+methods.
+ var empty interface{}
+ empty = w
+
+e
will again contain
+that same pair, (tty
, *os.File
). That's
+handy: an empty interface can hold any value and contains all the
+information we could ever need about that value.
+w
satisfies the empty interface. In the example
+where we moved a value from a Reader
to a
+Writer
, we needed to be explicit and use a type
+assertion because Writer
's methods are not a
+subset of Reader
's.)
+reflect.TypeOf
and
+reflect.ValueOf
, retrieve reflect.Type
+and reflect.Value
pieces out of an interface value.
+(Also, from the reflect.Value
it's easy to get
+to the reflect.Type
, but let's keep the
+Value
and Type
concepts separate for
+now.)
+TypeOf
:
+package main
+
+import (
+ "fmt"
+ "reflect"
+)
+
+func main() {
+ var x float64 = 3.4
+ fmt.Println("type:", reflect.TypeOf(x))
+}
+
+
+type: float64
+
+
+float64
+variable x
, not an interface value, to
+reflect.TypeOf
. But it's there; as godoc reports, the
+signature of reflect.TypeOf
includes an empty
+interface:
+
+// TypeOf returns the reflection Type of the value in the interface{}.
+func TypeOf(i interface{}) Type
+
+
+reflect.TypeOf(x)
, x
is
+first stored in an empty interface, which is then passed as the
+argument; reflect.TypeOf
unpacks that empty interface
+to recover the type information.
+reflect.ValueOf
function, of course, recovers the
+value (from here on we'll elide the boilerplate and focus just on
+the executable code):
+ var x float64 = 3.4
+ fmt.Println("type:", reflect.TypeOf(x))
+
+
+value: <float64 Value>
+
+
+reflect.Type
and reflect.Value
have
+lots of methods to let us examine and manipulate them. One
+important example is that Value
has a
+Type
method that returns the Type
of a
+reflect.Value
. Another is that both Type
+and Value
have a Kind
method that returns
+a constant indicating what sort of item is stored:
+Uint
, Float64
, Slice
, and so
+on. Also methods on Value
with names like
+Int
and Float
let us grab values (as
+int64
and float64
) stored inside:
+ var x float64 = 3.4
+ v := reflect.ValueOf(x)
+ fmt.Println("type:", v.Type())
+ fmt.Println("kind is float64:", v.Kind() == reflect.Float64)
+ fmt.Println("value:", v.Float())
+
+
+type: float64
+kind is float64: true
+value: 3.4
+
+
+SetInt
and
+SetFloat
but to use them we need to understand
+settability, the subject of the third law of reflection, discussed
+below.
+Value
operate on the largest type that can
+hold the value: int64
for all the signed integers, for
+instance. That is, the Int
method of
+Value
returns an int64
and the
+SetInt
value takes an int64
; it may be
+necessary to convert to the actual type involved:
+ var x uint8 = 'x'
+ v := reflect.ValueOf(x)
+ fmt.Println("type:", v.Type()) // uint8.
+ fmt.Println("kind is uint8: ", v.Kind() == reflect.Uint8) // true.
+ x = uint8(v.Uint()) // v.Uint returns a uint64.
+
+Kind
of a reflection
+object describes the underlying type, not the static type. If a
+reflection object contains a value of a user-defined integer type,
+as in
+ type MyInt int
+ var x MyInt = 7
+ v := reflect.ValueOf(x)
+
+Kind
of v
is still
+reflect.Int
, even though the static type of
+x
is MyInt
, not int
. In
+other words, the Kind
cannot discriminate an int from
+a MyInt
even though the Type
can.
+reflect.Value
we can recover an interface
+value using the Interface
method; in effect the method
+packs the type and value information back into an interface
+representation and returns the result:
+
+// Interface returns v's value as an interface{}.
+func (v Value) Interface() interface{}
+
+
+ y := v.Interface().(float64) // y will have type float64.
+ fmt.Println(y)
+
+float64
value represented by the
+reflection object v
.
+fmt.Println
, fmt.Printf
and so on are all
+passed as empty interface values, which are then unpacked by the
+fmt
package internally just as we have been doing in
+the previous examples. Therefore all it takes to print the contents
+of a reflect.Value
correctly is to pass the result of
+the Interface
method to the formatted print
+routine:
+ fmt.Println(v.Interface())
+
+fmt.Println(v)
? Because v
is a
+reflect.Value
; we want the concrete value it holds.)
+Since our value is a float64
, we can even use a
+floating-point format if we want:
+ fmt.Printf("value is %7.1e\n", v.Interface())
+
+
+3.4e+00
+
+
+v.Interface()
to float64
; the empty
+interface value has the concrete value's type information inside
+and Printf
will recover it.
+Interface
method is the inverse of the
+ValueOf
function, except that its result is always of
+static type interface{}
.
+ var x float64 = 3.4
+ v := reflect.ValueOf(x)
+ v.SetFloat(7.1) // Error: will panic.
+
+
+panic: reflect.Value.SetFloat using unaddressable value
+
+
+7.1
is not
+addressable; it's that v
is not settable. Settability
+is a property of a reflection Value
, and not all
+reflection Values
have it.
+CanSet
method of Value
reports the
+settability of a Value
; in our case,
+ var x float64 = 3.4
+ v := reflect.ValueOf(x)
+ fmt.Println("settability of v:", v.CanSet())
+
+
+settability of v: false
+
+
+Set
method on an non-settable
+Value
. But what is settability?
+ var x float64 = 3.4
+ v := reflect.ValueOf(x)
+
+x
to
+reflect.ValueOf
, so the interface value created as the
+argument to reflect.ValueOf
is a copy of
+x
, not x
itself. Thus, if the
+statement
+ v.SetFloat(7.1)
+
+x
, even
+though v
looks like it was created from
+x
. Instead, it would update the copy of x
+stored inside the reflection value and x
itself would
+be unaffected. That would be confusing and useless, so it is
+illegal, and settability is the property used to avoid this
+issue.
+x
to a
+function:
+
+f(x)
+
+
+f
to be able to modify
+x
because we passed a copy of x
's value,
+not x
itself. If we want f
to modify
+x
directly we must pass our function the address of
+x
(that is, a pointer to x
):f(&x)
+x
by reflection, we must
+give the reflection library a pointer to the value we want to
+modify.
+x
as usual
+and then create a reflection value that points to it, called
+p
.
+ var x float64 = 3.4
+ p := reflect.ValueOf(&x) // Note: take the address of x.
+ fmt.Println("type of p:", p.Type())
+ fmt.Println("settability of p:", p.CanSet())
+
+
+type of p: *float64
+settability of p: false
+
+
+p
isn't settable, but it's not
+p
we want to set, it's (in effect) *p
. To
+get to what p
points to, we call the Elem
+method of Value
, which indirects through the pointer,
+and save the result in a reflection Value
called
+v
:
+ v := p.Elem()
+ fmt.Println("settability of v:", v.CanSet())
+
+v
is a settable reflection object, as the output
+demonstrates,
+
+settability of v: true
+
+
+x
, we are finally able to use
+v.SetFloat
to modify the value of
+x
:
+ v.SetFloat(7.1)
+ fmt.Println(v.Interface())
+ fmt.Println(x)
+
+
+7.1
+7.1
+
+
+Types
and
+Values
that can disguise what's going on. Just keep in
+mind that reflection Values need the address of something in order
+to modify what they represent.
+v
wasn't a pointer itself, it
+was just derived from one. A common way for this situation to arise
+is when using reflection to modify the fields of a structure. As
+long as we have the address of the structure, we can modify its
+fields.
+t
. We create the reflection object with the address of
+the struct because we'll want to modify it later. Then we set
+typeOfT
to its type and iterate over the fields using
+straightforward method calls (see
+package reflect for details).
+Note that we extract the names of the fields from the struct type,
+but the fields themselves are regular reflect.Value
+objects.
+ type T struct {
+ A int
+ B string
+ }
+ t := T{23, "skidoo"}
+ s := reflect.ValueOf(&t).Elem()
+ typeOfT := s.Type()
+ for i := 0; i < s.NumField(); i++ {
+ f := s.Field(i)
+ fmt.Printf("%d: %s %s = %v\n", i,
+ typeOfT.Field(i).Name, f.Type(), f.Interface())
+ }
+ s.Field(0).SetInt(77)
+ s.Field(1).SetString("Sunset Strip")
+ fmt.Println("t is now", t)
+
+
+0: A int = 23
+1: B string = skidoo
+
+
+T
are upper case
+(exported) because only exported fields of a struct are
+settable.
+s
contains a settable reflection object, we
+can modify the fields of the structure.
+ s.Field(0).SetInt(77)
+ s.Field(1).SetString("Sunset Strip")
+ fmt.Println("t is now", t)
+
+
+t is now {77 Sunset Strip}
+
+
+s
was created from
+t
, not &t
, the calls to
+SetInt
and SetString
would fail as the
+fields of t
would not be settable.
+
+
+
+int
,
+float32
, *MyType
, []byte
,
+and so on. If we declare
+i
has type int
and j
+has type MyInt
. The variables i
and
+j
have distinct static types and, although they have
+the same underlying type, they cannot be assigned to one another
+without a conversion.
+io.Reader
and io.Writer
, the types
+Reader
and Writer
from the io package:
+Read
(or
+Write
) method with this signature is said to implement
+io.Reader
(or io.Writer
). For the
+purposes of this discussion, that means that a variable of type
+io.Reader
can hold any value whose type has a
+Read
method:
+r
may hold, r
's type is always
+io.Reader
: Go is statically typed and the static type
+of r
is io.Reader
.
+interface{}
+
+
+r
contains, schematically, the (value, type) pair,
+(tty
, *os.File
). Notice that the type
+*os.File
implements methods other than
+Read
; even though the interface value provides access
+only to the Read
method, the value inside carries all
+the type information about that value. That's why we can do things
+like this:
+r
also implements
+io.Writer
, and so we can assign it to w
.
+After the assignment, w
will contain the pair
+(tty
, *os.File
). That's the same pair as
+was held in r
. The static type of the interface
+determines what methods may be invoked with an interface variable,
+even though the concrete value inside may have a larger set of
+methods.
+e
will again contain
+that same pair, (tty
, *os.File
). That's
+handy: an empty interface can hold any value and contains all the
+information we could ever need about that value.
+w
satisfies the empty interface. In the example
+where we moved a value from a Reader
to a
+Writer
, we needed to be explicit and use a type
+assertion because Writer
's methods are not a
+subset of Reader
's.)
+reflect.TypeOf
and
+reflect.ValueOf
, retrieve reflect.Type
+and reflect.Value
pieces out of an interface value.
+(Also, from the reflect.Value
it's easy to get
+to the reflect.Type
, but let's keep the
+Value
and Type
concepts separate for
+now.)
+TypeOf
:
+
+type: float64
+
+
+float64
+variable x
, not an interface value, to
+reflect.TypeOf
. But it's there; as godoc reports, the
+signature of reflect.TypeOf
includes an empty
+interface:
+
+// TypeOf returns the reflection Type of the value in the interface{}.
+func TypeOf(i interface{}) Type
+
+
+reflect.TypeOf(x)
, x
is
+first stored in an empty interface, which is then passed as the
+argument; reflect.TypeOf
unpacks that empty interface
+to recover the type information.
+reflect.ValueOf
function, of course, recovers the
+value (from here on we'll elide the boilerplate and focus just on
+the executable code):
+
+value: <float64 Value>
+
+
+reflect.Type
and reflect.Value
have
+lots of methods to let us examine and manipulate them. One
+important example is that Value
has a
+Type
method that returns the Type
of a
+reflect.Value
. Another is that both Type
+and Value
have a Kind
method that returns
+a constant indicating what sort of item is stored:
+Uint
, Float64
, Slice
, and so
+on. Also methods on Value
with names like
+Int
and Float
let us grab values (as
+int64
and float64
) stored inside:
+
+type: float64
+kind is float64: true
+value: 3.4
+
+
+SetInt
and
+SetFloat
but to use them we need to understand
+settability, the subject of the third law of reflection, discussed
+below.
+Value
operate on the largest type that can
+hold the value: int64
for all the signed integers, for
+instance. That is, the Int
method of
+Value
returns an int64
and the
+SetInt
value takes an int64
; it may be
+necessary to convert to the actual type involved:
+Kind
of a reflection
+object describes the underlying type, not the static type. If a
+reflection object contains a value of a user-defined integer type,
+as in
+Kind
of v
is still
+reflect.Int
, even though the static type of
+x
is MyInt
, not int
. In
+other words, the Kind
cannot discriminate an int from
+a MyInt
even though the Type
can.
+reflect.Value
we can recover an interface
+value using the Interface
method; in effect the method
+packs the type and value information back into an interface
+representation and returns the result:
+
+// Interface returns v's value as an interface{}.
+func (v Value) Interface() interface{}
+
+
+float64
value represented by the
+reflection object v
.
+fmt.Println
, fmt.Printf
and so on are all
+passed as empty interface values, which are then unpacked by the
+fmt
package internally just as we have been doing in
+the previous examples. Therefore all it takes to print the contents
+of a reflect.Value
correctly is to pass the result of
+the Interface
method to the formatted print
+routine:
+fmt.Println(v)
? Because v
is a
+reflect.Value
; we want the concrete value it holds.)
+Since our value is a float64
, we can even use a
+floating-point format if we want:
+
+3.4e+00
+
+
+v.Interface()
to float64
; the empty
+interface value has the concrete value's type information inside
+and Printf
will recover it.
+Interface
method is the inverse of the
+ValueOf
function, except that its result is always of
+static type interface{}
.
+
+panic: reflect.Value.SetFloat using unaddressable value
+
+
+7.1
is not
+addressable; it's that v
is not settable. Settability
+is a property of a reflection Value
, and not all
+reflection Values
have it.
+CanSet
method of Value
reports the
+settability of a Value
; in our case,
+
+settability of v: false
+
+
+Set
method on an non-settable
+Value
. But what is settability?
+x
to
+reflect.ValueOf
, so the interface value created as the
+argument to reflect.ValueOf
is a copy of
+x
, not x
itself. Thus, if the
+statement
+x
, even
+though v
looks like it was created from
+x
. Instead, it would update the copy of x
+stored inside the reflection value and x
itself would
+be unaffected. That would be confusing and useless, so it is
+illegal, and settability is the property used to avoid this
+issue.
+x
to a
+function:
+
+f(x)
+
+
+f
to be able to modify
+x
because we passed a copy of x
's value,
+not x
itself. If we want f
to modify
+x
directly we must pass our function the address of
+x
(that is, a pointer to x
):f(&x)
+x
by reflection, we must
+give the reflection library a pointer to the value we want to
+modify.
+x
as usual
+and then create a reflection value that points to it, called
+p
.
+
+type of p: *float64
+settability of p: false
+
+
+p
isn't settable, but it's not
+p
we want to set, it's (in effect) *p
. To
+get to what p
points to, we call the Elem
+method of Value
, which indirects through the pointer,
+and save the result in a reflection Value
called
+v
:
+v
is a settable reflection object, as the output
+demonstrates,
+
+settability of v: true
+
+
+x
, we are finally able to use
+v.SetFloat
to modify the value of
+x
:
+
+7.1
+7.1
+
+
+Types
and
+Values
that can disguise what's going on. Just keep in
+mind that reflection Values need the address of something in order
+to modify what they represent.
+v
wasn't a pointer itself, it
+was just derived from one. A common way for this situation to arise
+is when using reflection to modify the fields of a structure. As
+long as we have the address of the structure, we can modify its
+fields.
+t
. We create the reflection object with the address of
+the struct because we'll want to modify it later. Then we set
+typeOfT
to its type and iterate over the fields using
+straightforward method calls (see
+package reflect for details).
+Note that we extract the names of the fields from the struct type,
+but the fields themselves are regular reflect.Value
+objects.
+
+0: A int = 23
+1: B string = skidoo
+
+
+T
are upper case
+(exported) because only exported fields of a struct are
+settable.
+s
contains a settable reflection object, we
+can modify the fields of the structure.
+
+t is now {77 Sunset Strip}
+
+
+s
was created from
+t
, not &t
, the calls to
+SetInt
and SetString
would fail as the
+fields of t
would not be settable.
+
+
+
+
@@ -253,4 +253,3 @@ Go libraries.