Is there a way to constrain (generic) type parameters?
php editor Youzi discussed a common question: Is there a way to constrain (general) type parameters? In PHP, we often need to impose type constraints on the parameters of functions or methods to ensure that the parameters passed in meet specific type requirements. However, there is currently no direct way to constrain generic type parameters, such as arrays or objects. However, we can implement constraints on common type parameters by writing more strict type checking logic to ensure the correctness and consistency of the parameters. In this article, we'll explore several ways to implement generic type parameter constraints, as well as their pros and cons.
Question content
I just started learning generics. So I'm trying to generalize a driver for a custom database that runs on some protobuf messages.
I would like to find a way to further constrain my generic type, but as a pointer, i.e. make sure (tell the compiler) that the constraint e implements another method.
First, I limited the entities that the database can handle.
type entity interface { pb.msga | pb.msgb | pb.msgc }
Then, a common interface describing the functionality of the database was written so that it could be used by different services handling their own raw messages:
type db[e entity] interface { get(...) (e, error) list(...) ([]e, error) ... }
So far so good. However, I also want to (de)serialize these entities when communicating with the database so that they can be sent over the network, cloned and merged. Something like this:
func encode[e entity](v *e) ([]byte, error) { return proto.marshal(v) }
However, the above code gives the following error:
cannot use val (variable of type *e) as type protoreflect.protomessage in argument to proto.marshal: *e does not implement protoreflect.protomessage (type *e is pointer to type parameter, not type parameter)
The problem is that proto.marshal
requires entities (*e) to implement the proto.message
interface, i.e. the protoreflect()
method, for all my entity types Both implement the method, but it is unconstrained and cannot be inferred by the compiler.
I also tried defining the entity as:
type Entity interface { *pb.MsgA | *pb.MsgB | *pb.MsgC proto.Message }
However, this doesn't feel right, besides the fact that I need to do some extra protreflect operations to instantiate the proto.messages referenced by the entity pointer.
Solution
You can do this:
func encode[m interface { *e; proto.message }, e entity](v m) ([]byte, error) { return proto.marshal(v) }
If you want a more concise syntax than the above, you can cancel the message constraint:
type Message[E Entity] interface { *E proto.Message } func Encode[M Message[E], E Entity](v M) ([]byte, error) { return proto.Marshal(v) }
https://www.php.cn/link/20ba66f905957b34253d9d7abde919f3
The above is the detailed content of Is there a way to constrain (generic) type parameters?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!

Hot AI Tools

Undresser.AI Undress
AI-powered app for creating realistic nude photos

AI Clothes Remover
Online AI tool for removing clothes from photos.

Undress AI Tool
Undress images for free

Clothoff.io
AI clothes remover

Video Face Swap
Swap faces in any video effortlessly with our completely free AI face swap tool!

Hot Article

Hot Tools

Notepad++7.3.1
Easy-to-use and free code editor

SublimeText3 Chinese version
Chinese version, very easy to use

Zend Studio 13.0.1
Powerful PHP integrated development environment

Dreamweaver CS6
Visual web development tools

SublimeText3 Mac version
God-level code editing software (SublimeText3)

Hot Topics











Golang is better than Python in terms of performance and scalability. 1) Golang's compilation-type characteristics and efficient concurrency model make it perform well in high concurrency scenarios. 2) Python, as an interpreted language, executes slowly, but can optimize performance through tools such as Cython.

Golang is better than C in concurrency, while C is better than Golang in raw speed. 1) Golang achieves efficient concurrency through goroutine and channel, which is suitable for handling a large number of concurrent tasks. 2)C Through compiler optimization and standard library, it provides high performance close to hardware, suitable for applications that require extreme optimization.

Goisidealforbeginnersandsuitableforcloudandnetworkservicesduetoitssimplicity,efficiency,andconcurrencyfeatures.1)InstallGofromtheofficialwebsiteandverifywith'goversion'.2)Createandrunyourfirstprogramwith'gorunhello.go'.3)Exploreconcurrencyusinggorout

Golang is suitable for rapid development and concurrent scenarios, and C is suitable for scenarios where extreme performance and low-level control are required. 1) Golang improves performance through garbage collection and concurrency mechanisms, and is suitable for high-concurrency Web service development. 2) C achieves the ultimate performance through manual memory management and compiler optimization, and is suitable for embedded system development.

Goimpactsdevelopmentpositivelythroughspeed,efficiency,andsimplicity.1)Speed:Gocompilesquicklyandrunsefficiently,idealforlargeprojects.2)Efficiency:Itscomprehensivestandardlibraryreducesexternaldependencies,enhancingdevelopmentefficiency.3)Simplicity:

Golang and Python each have their own advantages: Golang is suitable for high performance and concurrent programming, while Python is suitable for data science and web development. Golang is known for its concurrency model and efficient performance, while Python is known for its concise syntax and rich library ecosystem.

The performance differences between Golang and C are mainly reflected in memory management, compilation optimization and runtime efficiency. 1) Golang's garbage collection mechanism is convenient but may affect performance, 2) C's manual memory management and compiler optimization are more efficient in recursive computing.

Golang and C each have their own advantages in performance competitions: 1) Golang is suitable for high concurrency and rapid development, and 2) C provides higher performance and fine-grained control. The selection should be based on project requirements and team technology stack.
