|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +title: "Tutorial: GetOrMake for maps." |
| 3 | +slug: tutorial-getormake |
| 4 | +date: 2025-01-08T22:06:58-08:00 |
| 5 | +tags: |
| 6 | + - golang |
| 7 | + - tutorial |
| 8 | +categories: |
| 9 | + - Go |
| 10 | + - Tutorial |
| 11 | +--- |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +Today I'm going to quickly go over one of my favourite convenience functions, |
| 14 | +made possible with Go's Generics. It's invaluable if you deal with maps of maps |
| 15 | +in Go. |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +<!--more--> |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +### Maps |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +Maps are one of the the original "generic" types available to Go users. |
| 22 | +If you aren't familiar with them, you can learn about them in [Effective Go](https://go.dev/doc/effective_go#maps). |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +The important bit is that the key type must be `comparable`, which is a special |
| 25 | +built in interface, that defines all comparable types. |
| 26 | +See https://pkg.go.dev/builtin#comparable for more details on that. |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +### Nested Maps |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +However, the values of those maps can be any Go type at all, including any other map. |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +```go |
| 34 | +// nested maps, two deep. |
| 35 | +var mapOfMaps map[string]maps[string]string |
| 36 | +``` |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +And the values for those *nested* maps, can also have maps. |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +```go |
| 41 | +// nested maps, two deep. |
| 42 | +var mapOfMapsOfMaps map[string]maps[string]map[string]string |
| 43 | +``` |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +### Setting nested maps |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +But this nesting has a downside. What if you want to get to that final map, so |
| 48 | +you can set the value on it's key. |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +Say it's a field Map on a struct, and we have a method to set the inner most value. |
| 51 | +The code would then need to initialize all the maps along the way to setting the |
| 52 | +value. |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +```go |
| 55 | +func (w *mWrapper) Set(k1,k2,k3, value string) { |
| 56 | + if w.Map == nil { |
| 57 | + w.Map = make(map[string]maps[string]map[string]string) |
| 58 | + } |
| 59 | + v1, ok := w.Map[k1] |
| 60 | + if !ok { |
| 61 | + v1 = make(map[string]maps[string]string) |
| 62 | + w.Map[k1] = v1 |
| 63 | + } |
| 64 | + v2, ok := v1[k2] |
| 65 | + if !ok { |
| 66 | + v2 = make(map[string]string) |
| 67 | + v1[k2] = v2 |
| 68 | + } |
| 69 | + v2[k3] = value |
| 70 | +} |
| 71 | +``` |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +What's happening here, is that for each level with an inner map, we need to |
| 74 | +check if that map exists. We use the "comma ok" idiom, where the value of OK |
| 75 | +indicates if the map as a value for the given key or not. If it doesn't exist, |
| 76 | +we make a new instance of the map type, and assign it both to the value variable, |
| 77 | +and to the key in the map itself. |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +As you can imagine, the more layers of nesting you have, the more tedious |
| 80 | +creating the earlier nested map types become. |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +### Generics to the rescue! |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +Using generics, we can avoid some of this! |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +```go |
| 87 | +func (w *mWrapper) Set(k1,k2,k3, value string) { |
| 88 | + if w.Map == nil { |
| 89 | + w.Map = make(map[string]maps[string]map[string]string) |
| 90 | + } |
| 91 | + v1 := getOrMake(w.Map, k1) |
| 92 | + v2 := getOrMake(v1, k2) |
| 93 | + v2[k3] = value |
| 94 | +} |
| 95 | +``` |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +Now it's eight lines shorter! 4 per level we've removed, including the tedious |
| 98 | +repetition of the nested type. |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | +Here's the code for `getOrMake`. |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | +```go |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +func |
| 105 | + |
| 106 | +// getOrMake is a generic helper function for extracting or initializing a sub map. |
| 107 | +func getOrMake[K, VK comparable, VV any, V map[VK]VV, M map[K]V](m M, key K) V { |
| 108 | + v, ok := m[key] |
| 109 | + if !ok { |
| 110 | + v = make(V) |
| 111 | + m[key] = v |
| 112 | + } |
| 113 | + return v |
| 114 | +} |
| 115 | +``` |
| 116 | + |
| 117 | +First we've declared our generic types. |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +* K is the key for the outermost map. |
| 120 | +* VK is the key for the value map. |
| 121 | +* VV is the value for the value map, |
| 122 | +* V is the type of the value map: `map[VK]VV` |
| 123 | +* M the type of the map being passed in, `map[K]V` |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +The function then takes in an instance `m` of type `M`, and the `key` of type `K`, |
| 126 | +returning an instance of the the value map. |
| 127 | + |
| 128 | +The then the code is pretty straightforward. |
| 129 | + |
| 130 | +We lookup the value of the key, and whether it exists or not. If the key has |
| 131 | +no value, then we do as we did before: create an instance of the value map, and |
| 132 | +assign that to the key. Then we return the value itself. |
| 133 | + |
| 134 | +I wouldn't pull out `getOrMake` the first time I need it, and it only works for |
| 135 | +maps. But if I start repeating the pattern around in a package, or I start to |
| 136 | +play with the inner types, using `getOrMake` can reduce some effort around that |
| 137 | +refactoring. |
| 138 | + |
| 139 | +### Aside: Top Level Maps |
| 140 | + |
| 141 | +It also can't work for top level maps. For example. |
| 142 | + |
| 143 | +```go |
| 144 | +func NoArgMakeMap[K comparable, V any, M map[K]V]() M { |
| 145 | + return make(M) |
| 146 | +} |
| 147 | +``` |
| 148 | + |
| 149 | +That doesn't work, since Go's type inference doesn't pull from the return value |
| 150 | +even if it would be helpful. |
| 151 | + |
| 152 | +The closest you can get is to explicitly hint the type, by including an unused |
| 153 | +parameter. |
| 154 | + |
| 155 | +```go |
| 156 | +func OneArgMakeMap[K comparable, V any, M map[K]V](_ M) M { |
| 157 | + return make(M) |
| 158 | +} |
| 159 | +``` |
| 160 | + |
| 161 | +That'll be enough to have the compiler do the right thing. |
| 162 | + |
| 163 | +There is at least [one](https://github.com/golang/go/issues/50285) issue in the |
| 164 | +Go issue tracker for this feature request, but no real proposals at this time. |
| 165 | + |
| 166 | +I don't think it's critical for Go to get this though, since the work around |
| 167 | +isn't terrible at this point. |
| 168 | + |
| 169 | +### Conclusion |
| 170 | + |
| 171 | +Generics in Go are a powerful tool to reduce boiler plate, even with small |
| 172 | +utility functions. Especially with Go's original generic types, like `map`! |
| 173 | + |
| 174 | +Thanks for reading. |
0 commit comments