Seven years later, I had the same idea as Js.
Before:
type intslice []int func (x intslice) Len() int { return len(x) } func (x
intslice) Less(i, j int) bool { return x[i] < x[j] } func (x intslice)
Swap(i, j int) { x[i], x[j] = x[j], x[i] } func main() { x := intslice{5,
1, 4, 2, 3} sort.Sort(x) log.Print(x) }
After:
func main() { x := []int{5, 1, 4, 2, 3} sort.Sort(sort.Interface{ Len() {
return(len(x)) }, Less(i,j int) { return x[i] < x[j] }, Swap(i,j int) {
x[i], x[j] = x[j], x[i] }, } log.Print(x) }
In my opinion, the latter is more elegant, because I don't have to change
x's type to get the behavior I want, and because I can place the code that
satisfies the interface where I use the interface. Like Js indicated, the
closure in which the interface literal is created would serve as the state
for the interface literal's implementation.
Thanks,
-Ken
Kenneth Duda
--
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
