英文:
In what sense can Go's interface be considered a pointer?
问题
在这篇博文中，作者提到：
结构体可以实现接口，所以通常你会将它们视为相同的东西。但是当你处理结构体时，你可能会通过引用传递，此时类型是 *myStruct，或者你可能会通过值传递，此时类型只是 myStruct。然而，如果你处理的是“仅仅”一个接口，你永远不会有一个指向它的指针 -- 接口在某种意义上是一个指针。当你看到代码中传递的东西没有 * 时，可能会感到困惑，要记住如果它是一个接口而不是结构体，它实际上可能是“一个指针”。
在什么意义上可以认为 Go 的接口是一个指针？请提供一些例子。
英文:
In this blog post the author states that:
> Structs can implement interfaces, of course, so in general you tend to
> treat these as the same thing. But when you're dealing with a struct,
> you might be passing by reference, in which the type is *myStruct, or
> you might be passing by value, in which the type is just myStruct. If,
> on the other hand, the thing you're dealing with is "just" an
> interface, you never have a pointer to it -- an interface is a pointer
> in some sense. It can get confusing when you're looking at code that
> is passing things around without the * to remember that it might
> actually "be a pointer" if it's an interface rather than a struct.
In what sense can Go's interface be considered a pointer? Please provide some examples.
答案1
得分: 3
这句话很奇怪。我认为他想表达的意思是：指针接收器上的方法清楚地表明该方法可能会修改接收器，因为该方法是在原始结构上调用的，而不是在副本上调用的。一旦你将一个结构体包装在接口值中，这种明确的指示“你在这里使用指针，这可能会修改原始值！”就会丢失：你可以传递接口值的副本，但所有这些副本都包装着同一个结构体。
英文:
This quote is strange. I think he wants to say something in the line of this: Methods on pointer receivers are a clear indication that the method may modify the receiver as the method is invoked on the original struct and not on a copy. This clear indication of "You work on pointers here, this might modify the original!" is lost once you wrap a struct in an interface value: You may pass around copies of the interface value but all these copies wrap the same struct.
通过集体智慧和协作来改善编程学习和解决问题的方式。致力于成为全球开发者共同参与的知识库，让每个人都能够通过互相帮助和分享经验来进步。
评论