On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Jesse McNelis wrote: > On 23 Nov. 2016 9:03 am, "Tong Sun" wrote: > > > > So, once again, thinking in OO, I'll define all of the common variables > in base class, and common functionalities in virtual functions. How to make > that idea work in Go? > > > > For the above specific code, how to easily make "func Output" works? > > > > You can use functions and embedding for code reuse and interfaces for > polymorphism. > > In your example you've implemented Speak() method for each type and > defined a Speaker interface but then in Output() you don't call Speak(). > Yeah, that Output() is the virtual function I'm implementing. In my real code it has nothing to do with Speak() method, only to use those common variables.
> If you have fields you want available through the Speaker interface then > you need to define getter methods for those fields and add them to the > interface. > Got it. > You could also add a Speak() method to the Animal type which would then be > available on any type that embeds an Animal and would have direct access to > any fields on Animal. > However, different animals speak differently. I.e., it is not the fields on Animal that matter but what outside it matter to Speak(), right? So adding a Speak() method to the Animal doesn't make much sense, right? > You could define a Speak() function that all the Speak() methods call for > some common functionality. > > How you structure it depends on what real world problem you're trying to > solve. > Probably, but just thinking in abstract terms, I thought there are some basic principles that people can follow. Anyway, I think paraiso.marc's methodology might be the only way. > -- 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.
