Go receiver methods calling syntax confusion

I was just reading through Effective Go and in the Pointers vs. Values section, near the end it says:

> The rule about pointers vs. values for receivers is that value methods can be invoked on pointers and values, but pointer methods can only be invoked on pointers. This is because pointer methods can modify the receiver; invoking them on a copy of the value would cause those modifications to be discarded.

To test it, I wrote this:

<!-- language: lang-go -->

package main

import (
  "fmt"
  "reflect"
)

type age int

func (a age) String() string {
  return fmt.Sprintf("%d yeasr(s) old", int(a))
}

func (a *age) Set(newAge int) {
  if newAge >= 0 {
    *a = age(newAge)
  }
}

func main() {
  var vAge age = 5
  pAge := new(age)

  fmt.Printf("TypeOf =>\n\tvAge: %v\n\tpAge: %v\n", reflect.TypeOf(vAge),
    reflect.TypeOf(pAge))

  fmt.Printf("vAge.String(): %v\n", vAge.String())
  fmt.Printf("vAge.Set(10)\n")
  vAge.Set(10)
  fmt.Printf("vAge.String(): %v\n", vAge.String())

  fmt.Printf("pAge.String(): %v\n", pAge.String())
  fmt.Printf("pAge.Set(10)\n")
  pAge.Set(10)
  fmt.Printf("pAge.String(): %v\n", pAge.String())
}

And it compiles, even though the document says it shouldn't since the pointer method Set() should not be invocable through the value var vAge. Am I doing something wrong here?

That's valid because vAge is addressable. See the last paragraph in Calls under the language spec:

> A method call x.m() is valid if the method set of (the type of) x
> contains m and the argument list can be assigned to the parameter list
> of m. If x is addressable and &x's method set contains m, x.m() is
> shorthand for (&x).m().

1: http://golang.org/ref/spec#Calls "Calls"

vAge is not considered as only a "value variable", because it's a known location in memory that stores a value of type age. Looking at vAge only as its value, vAge.Set(10) is not valid as an expression on its own, but because vAge is addressable, the spec declares that it's okay to treat the expression as shorthand for "get the address of vAge, and call Set on that" at compile-time, when we will be able to verify that Set is part of the method set for either age or *age. You're basically allowing the compiler to do a textual expansion on the original expression if it determines that it's necessary and possible.

Meanwhile, the compiler will allow you to call age(23).String() but not age(23).Set(10). In this case, we're working with a non-addressable value of type age. Since it's not valid to say &age(23), it can't be valid to say (&age(23)).Set(10); the compiler won't do that expansion.

Looking at the Effective Go example, you're not directly calling b.Write() at the scope where we know b's full type. You're instead making a temporary copy of b and trying to pass it off as a value of type interface io.Writer(). The problem is that the implementation of Printf doesn't know anything about the object being passed in except that it has promised it knows how to receive Write(), so it doesn't know to take a byteSlice and turn it into a *ByteSlice before calling the function. The decision of whether to address b has to happen at compile time, and PrintF was compiled with the precondition that its first argument would know how to receive Write() without being referenced.

You may think that if the system knows how to take an age pointer and convert it to an age value, that it should be able to do the reverse; t doesn't really make sense to be able to, though. In the Effective Go example, if you were to pass b instead of &b, you'd modify a slice that would no longer exist after PrintF returns, which is hardly useful. In my age example above, it literally makes no sense to take the value 23 and overwrite it with the value 10. In the first case, it makes sense for the compiler to stop and ask the programmer what she really meant to do when handing b off. In the latter case, it of course makes sense for the compiler to refuse to modify a constant value.

Furthermore, I don't think the system is dynamically extending age's method set to *age; my wild guess is that pointer types are statically given a method for each of the base type's methods, which just dereferences the pointer and calls the base's method. It's safe to do this automatically, as nothing in a receive-by-value method can change the pointer anyway. In the other direction, it doesn't always make sense to extend a set of methods that are asking to modify data by wrapping them in a way that the data they modify disappears shortly thereafter. There are definitely cases where it makes sense to do this, but this needs to be decided explicitly by the programmer, and it makes sense for the compiler to stop and ask for such.

tl;dr I think that the paragraph in Effective Go could use a bit of rewording (although I'm probably too long-winded to take the job), but it's correct. A pointer of type *X effectively has access to all of X's methods, but 'X' does not have access to *X's. Therefore, when determining whether an object can fulfill a given interface, *X is allowed to fulfill any interface X can, but the converse is not true. Furthermore, even though a variable of type X in scope is known to be addressable at compile-time--so the compiler can convert it to a *X--it will refuse to do so for the purposes of interface fulfillment because doing so may not make sense.