[go-nuts] reflect, is it possible to get the [body + sign] of a func as text at runtime ?
The body is compiled so you can't get it via reflection. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[go-nuts] Interface{} constrains on specific types
I'm developing a json schema generator (json schema from Go ast and the
other way around). There is a keyword "oneOf" which requires exactly one
schema to be valid in this keyword's value. In Go I translate it by using
an empty interface{}. The issue is that when I convert the interface{} to
json schema I can only say that the object can be of any type even if I
know that it can hold only a small subset.
Therefore I'm wondering if placing some constrains on the types that could
be implemented by the interface would be a good idea. For example instead
of `type interface{}` which implements any type we could define the types
it can implement (e.g. type X interface{T1, T2, T3} ). This way we don't
have a totally black box so it improves the documentation/semantics and we
avoid specific bugs using static analysis. Currently the practice seems to
be documenting the types in pure comments[0] which cannot be analysed
statically. Another option that I'm considering now is to use the empty
interface but with specific tags [1] and use an external tool. This might
have been proposed before but I can't find it on the mailing list. What do
you think?
[0] https://golang.org/pkg/go/ast/#Object
[1]
type Object struct {
Name string // declared
name
Decl interface{} `interface:"Field,FuncDecl,LabeledStmt,external.Scope"
//
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[go-nuts] Unmarshalling and tags
Hi there,
I have a struct that needs to be marshalled/unmarshalled using various
serialization formats(xml, json, name/value). The tags start to represent a
considerable effort[0] so I'm wondering if this is a common use case and if
a change[1] to the encoding packages to specify the tag key/selectors would
be a bad idea. Another option would be to use a standard tag key as default
(e.g. "encoding") but I think it may violate the Go1 backward
compatibility.
Mihai.
[0]
type Payment struct {
ActionType paypal.ActionType `query:"actionType,omitempty"
json:"actionType,omitempty" xml:"actionType,omitempty"`
ReceiverList paypal.ReceiverList `query:"actionType,omitempty"
json:"receiverList,omitempty" xml:"receiverList,omitempty"`
}
[1] (dec *Decoder)SetTagKey(key string)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[go-nuts] WebAssembly as a target
I don't think we can expect anything before wasm supports GC (i.e. Phase 3 on wasm roadmap). Once GC is supported(not very soon) Go could be compiled through llgo[0]. One issue could be the binary size(.i.e due /reflect) - Mihai [0] https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llgo/trunk/README.TXT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
