On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Tahir Hashmi wrote: > > I also like the approach suggested by Sebastien Binet. It's really neat in > situations where you can get by without needing to override the base > implementation (e.g. of Shape.Output()). >
That it is only a partial solution -- I have a huge list of common variables that I defined in my "base class", changing it from a member function to a pure function causes almost every single variable now undefined. I've tried to derive how to achieve a) implementation inheritance, followed > by b) type substitution and c) enabling dynamic dispatch as in virtual > functions in my blog post here: https://tech.t9i.in/ > 2014/01/22/inheritance-semantics-in-go/ > What's the fundamental difference between it and paraiso.marc's implementation? https://play.golang.org/p/o6Ot4IdJZ1 My view is that GenHello() is just a fancy way of paraiso.marc's getters. True? On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 2:46:27 AM UTC+5:30, Tong Sun wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> How to architect the OO's virtual function in Go? >> >> Please take a look at this (not working) Go program >> https://play.golang.org/p/qrBX6ScABp >> >> Please think of the "func Output()" as a very complicated function that I >> only want to define *once *at the base level, not to duplicate into each >> sub classes. >> >> How can I make it works so that the last output statement, instead of >> being, >> >> fmt.Printf("[%v] %s: [%0.2f]\n", k, v.Name(), v.Area()) >> >> >> will be this instead: >> >> fmt.Printf("[%v] %s\n", k, v.Output()) >> >> >> Thanks >> > -- 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.
