Ha, I wrote this version before I saw that response: https://play.golang.org/p/vO2TI7OeJk_E
On 7 September 2018 at 09:00, Nigel Tao <nigel...@golang.org> wrote: > Building on Todd's example, you can add a little more type safety > (having the map value type be a "func etc" instead of "reflect.Value) > by Curry'ing the receiver: https://play.golang.org/p/n3sDpxfd2td > > I've also split up the single run function into two: one binds strings > to functions, the second takes some strings (e.g. as args, but you > could imagine from a REPL) and calls the corresponding functions. > "Favor composition over inheritance" is old programming advice, not > specific to Go, but is obviously applicable to Go, which does not have > inheritance. Instead of having a FooCmd class that inherits from a Cmd > base class that adds smarts (in this case, being 'scriptable' or being > invokable from string input), have a dumb FooCmd type (and a dumb > BarCmd type, etc.) and compose those dumb types with a runner type > that does the binding / scriptability. > > -- > 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
