mirror of
https://github.com/golang/go
synced 2024-11-24 07:10:18 -07:00
FAQ: variant types, unions
Fixes #1935. R=rsc, bradfitz CC=golang-dev https://golang.org/cl/4850044
This commit is contained in:
parent
93c4a246a4
commit
7d87f3d233
@ -695,6 +695,42 @@ for i, v := range t {
|
||||
}
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="unions">
|
||||
Why are there no untagged unions, as in C?</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Untagged unions would violate Go's memory safety
|
||||
guarantees.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="variant_types">
|
||||
Why does Go not have variant types?</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Variant types, also known as algebraic types, provide a way to specify
|
||||
that a value might take one of a set of other types, but only those
|
||||
types. A common example in systems programming would specify that an
|
||||
error is, say, a network error, a security error or an application
|
||||
error and allow the caller to discriminate the source of the problem
|
||||
by examining the type of the error. Another example is a syntax tree
|
||||
in which each node can be a different type: declaration, statement,
|
||||
assignment and so on.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
We considered adding variant types to Go, but after discussion
|
||||
decided to leave them out because they overlap in confusing ways
|
||||
with interfaces. What would happen if the elements of a variant type
|
||||
were themselves interfaces?
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Also, some of what variant types address is already covered by the
|
||||
language. The error example is easy to express using an interface
|
||||
value to hold the error and a type switch to discriminate cases. The
|
||||
syntax tree example is also doable, although not as elegantly.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="values">Values</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="conversions">
|
||||
@ -1212,6 +1248,60 @@ that includes more powerful run-time support. We believe that with some effort
|
||||
the size of Go binaries can be reduced.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="unused_variables_and_imports">
|
||||
Can I stop these complaints about my unused variable/import?</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
The presence of an unused variable may indicate a bug, while
|
||||
unused imports just slow down compilation.
|
||||
Accumulate enough unused imports in your code tree and
|
||||
things can get very slow.
|
||||
For these reasons, Go allows neither.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
When developing code, it's common to create these situations
|
||||
temporarily and it can be annoying to have to edit them out before the
|
||||
program will compile.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Some have asked for a compiler option to turn those checks off
|
||||
or at least reduce them to warnings.
|
||||
Such an option has not been added, though,
|
||||
because compiler options should not affect the semantics of the
|
||||
language and because the Go compiler does not report warnings, only
|
||||
errors that prevent compilation.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
There are two reasons for having no warnings. First, if it's worth
|
||||
complaining about, it's worth fixing in the code. (And if it's not
|
||||
worth fixing, it's not worth mentioning.) Second, having the compiler
|
||||
generate warnings encourages the implementation to warn about weak
|
||||
cases that can make compilation noisy, masking real errors that
|
||||
<em>should</em> be fixed.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
It's easy to address the situation, though. Use the blank identifier
|
||||
to let unused things persist while you're developing.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<pre>
|
||||
import "unused"
|
||||
|
||||
// This declaration marks the import as used by referencing an
|
||||
// item from the package.
|
||||
var _ = unused.Item // TODO: Delete before committing!
|
||||
|
||||
func main() {
|
||||
debugData := debug.Profile()
|
||||
_ = debugData // Used only during debugging.
|
||||
....
|
||||
}
|
||||
</pre>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="Performance">Performance</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="Why_does_Go_perform_badly_on_benchmark_x">
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user