1. Note that you can just write `NewMessage(&MessageA{}, buf)` in your
example, as the type can be inferred.
2. You can use a constraint on a pointer-receiver to somewhat simplify
that: https://go.dev/play/p/pEu02Bn9t3f
That is not *quite* what you are asking for. It is not actually possible to
really do what you want, because there is no way to express a constraint
that "the type needs to have a `Buf []byte` field, which would be needed to
make your `m := &MessageAStruct{Buf: b}` work. But there isn't really a
reason to pass the buffer as a field anyways, in my opinion - passing it as
a parameter to `Decode` seems far more logical.
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 8:52 PM Mazen Harake <mazen.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Assume I have a tcp server with incoming tcp packets which can be decoded
> in differently depending on some headers in that packet.
>
> Each message that comes in has a struct associated with it which can be
> created with the traditionale NewX..(buf []byte ...). After creating the
> object (or inside the constructor, doesn't matter) the Decode() function is
> called to interpret the bytes and assign all the fields of the struct.
>
> This works fine. But is it possible to eliminate all the 200+ functions
> that do the same thing but use a generic function instead?
>
> So instead of this:
>
> func NewMessageA(buf []byte) *MessageAStruct {
> m := &MessageAStruct{
> Buf: buf,
> }
> m.Decode()
> return m
> }
>
> msg := NewMessageA(buf)
>
> I would rather do something like this:
>
> msg := NewMessage[A](buf)
>
> and I would've wanted to do something like this in the generic function
>
> func NewMessage[T](buf []byte) *T {
> // ... something?
> // call Decode()
> // return *T
> }
>
> I can do it by creating an interface called Decodable and then passing the
> the type and the "empty" object to the generic function but it feels clumsy
> and weird somehow and I probably wouldn't gain very much. E.g.
>
> func NewMessage[T Decodable](t T, buf []byte) T {
> t.Decode(buf)
> return t
> }
>
> and I would call it like this
>
> msg := NewMessage[*MessageA](&MessageA{}, buf)
>
> The most likely answer is "You shouldn't do it like that", which would be
> a completely fine and acceptable answer, but *can* you achieve this?
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> 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.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/5dc5715c-aad9-431f-8ea0-9c89db46d873n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/5dc5715c-aad9-431f-8ea0-9c89db46d873n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfH-NnvmvJ8h_EX2ZRcmyVH49P-VY7mYkPnPdr6Q-mxcww%40mail.gmail.com.
