Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Size classes would save some space and speed up like-to-like comparisons, but wouldn't really do much for unlike comparisons (especially vs. float or complex). Looking only at type pointers fails to account for custom types (e.g., type Foo int); remember that an untyped integer constant can be compared with these. If you want the same semantics at runtime as you get at compile time, I don't see how you can get much simpler than what I wrote, in terms of the high-level logic. Though there are undoubtedly ways to optimize it, both because Go's compiler favors speed of compilation over efficiency of generated code, and because if this were the real code, it could poke at internals while my (probably working) example has to rely on the public reflect package, which is more abstract.


But the LHS can determine how it compares to the RHS when the RHS is determined to be an untyped constant? Or instead of saying RHS (my mistake), let's say the typed side since comparisons are symmetric. A bit like having a special method attached to the type strictly for comparisons? That would be much less expensive than such a type switch if I am not mistaken. Would handle custom types as well. If promotable from the underlying type, that would not even bloat the executable. Unless I'm confused...


Ok, I think I follow. Instead of putting the comparison logic on the untyped side, you'd put it on the typed side. In code, reusing imports and untypedInt declaration, but replacing the method from before, you'd have:

  type intType interface { ~int | ~int8 | ~int16 | ~int32 | ~int64 }
  func equals[I intType](x I, y any) bool {
    switch val := y.(type) {
    case I: return x == val
    case untypedInt: return val.i.IsInt64() && val.i.Int64() == int64(x)
    default: return false
    }
  }
And this would need a separate specialization for unsigned integers, floats, and complex numbers. This approach saves us from having to introspect the underlying type at runtime, but the example is incomplete. We also have float and complex untyped constants, so now each concrete type has to switch on all of the untyped constant forms it compares with. Still, it might be faster, though I'm not sure how much it reduces code bloat in practice (it's nice to not need the reflect package though).

[edit: side note, I was trying to actually write out all the code that would be needed, and I discovered that you can't call real or imag on generic types: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/50937]




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: