spec: add untyped builtin zero

[rsc]

I propose to add a new predeclared identifier zero that is an untyped zero value. While nil is an untyped zero value restricted to chan/func/interface/map/slice/pointer types, zero would be an untyped zero value with no such restrictions.

The specific rules for zero mimic nil with fewer restrictions:

• zero is assignable to any variable of any type T that does not already have a short zero (0, "", nil), including when T is a type parameter with constraint any.
• A value of any type T may be compared to zero when it cannot already be compared to a short zero (0, "", nil), again including when T is a type parameter with constraint any.

That's it. That's all the rules.

Note that assignability includes function arguments and return values: f(zero) and return zero, err are valid.

See CL 509995 for exact spec changes.

---

This proposal addresses at least three important needs:

1. Referring to a zero value in generic code. Today people suggest *new(T), which I find embarrasingly clunky to explain to new users. This comes up fairly often, and we need something cleaner.

2. Comparing to a zero value in generic code, even for non-comparable type parameters. This comes up less often, but it did just come up in cmp.Or (cmp: add Or #60204).

3. Shortening error returns: return zero, err is nicer than return time.Time{}, err.

More generally, the zero value is an important concept in Go that some types currently have no name for. Now they would: zero.

Because zero is not valid anywhere 0, "", or nil are valid, there will be no confusion about which to use.

---

I'm not claiming any originality in this proposal. Others have certainly suggested variants in the past, in quite long discussions. I'm not aware of any precise statement of the exact rules above, but I won't be surprised if one exists.

A brief comparison with earlier proposals:

• proposal: builtin: iszero #61129 proposes a builtin iszero(x). This proposal uses x == zero instead.
• proposal: builtin: zero function #60695 proposes a generic zero function: zero(T) is a zero of type T. This proposal uses plain zero which enables use in comparison and avoids a usually unnecessary (T). In non-assignment, non-conversion contexts where a type must be written, this proposal uses T(zero), which seems more idiomatic to me at least.
• proposal: Go 2: universal zero value with type inference #35966 proposes an untyped zero value spelled {}. Later discussion in also considered zero.
• proposal: spec: define _ on rhs as zero value #19642 proposes an untyped zero value spelled _.

[gopherbot]

Change https://go.dev/cl/509995 mentions this issue: builtin, spec: add builtin untyped zero

[mvdan]

Assuming that you prefer zero over _ in terms of the syntax for a zero value or predeclared identifier, could you expand on your reasoning?

I personally find zero to be clearer and consistent with nil, although I admit that return _, _, err is shorter and feels nicer than return zero, zero, err. It also mirrors _, _, err := foo(), for example.

[mvdan]

As far as idiomatic discussion and naming, I expect that zero will only be used for these general uses and will not displace nil as a more specific kind of zero value. In particular, we will keep using terms like nil pointer and nil interface; we will not switch to saying zero pointer, zero interface, and so on.

I would really like for the spec and builtin change to include guidance on this. That is, I assume we want "idiomatic Go" to not replace most uses of nil with zero, except perhaps where it helps with consistency, like rewriting return nil, time.Time{}, err into return zero, zero, err.

We really want to discourage rewriting if err == nil into if err == zero, for example. That sort of change would be noisy and make Go code less consistent across codebases, unless everyone does the big rewrite - which seems unlikely.

[josharian]

An alternative is to adding zero is removing the restrictions for nil. Can you share some about the thinking to prefer adding zero?

[josharian]

except perhaps where it helps with consistency, like rewriting return nil, time.Time{}, err into return zero, zero, err

FWIW, I would still prefer #21182 here (return ..., err). I think that it is my single favorite open proposal. (Although I'm also partial to 128 bit ints. :P)

[occamist]

I am not a super smart guy but, I do think explaining *new(T) = *&struct{} is useful and not awkward at all, I come from strong C background, I think everyone who is new should learn what "*" or "&" stands for avoiding incorrect usage, some codebases actually pass **type or ***type without realizing because of this lack of knowledge.

Secondly, I think standard cmp package shouldn't be reasoning behind any change because we as developers now going to bump into same package names with 1.21 (because we use google/go-cmp primarly for our testing and IDEs will show up 2 results now, did you mean this or that etc), I am personally not happy with 1.21's cmp package direction

Thirdly, I think explaining zero as a concept over struct{} will be harder for everyone and in most cases, we never return allocated struct and error at the same time, it should be the dev who is assigning to a default when error occurs, not the other way around. I always never liked returning struct{}, err or nil,nil . Zero will hide the allocation detail for concrete types, I think allocation must be obvious to the reader's eye (new is the exception here)

apologies for the noise from me

[earthboundkid]

I prefer zero to _ because it would be weird to say if f == _.

[Merovius]

FWIW I don't have strong opinions about how to spell a universal zero value - I'm fine with any color for that bikeshed.
I do think this proposal (or this proposal with s/zero/_/g) has the advantage of addressing several semi-related issues with a single, easily understood mechanism.

@mrwormhole

Secondly, I think standard cmp package shouldn't be reasoning behind any change […]

The justification isn't the cmp package, it's that we need a mechanism to compare values against their zero value, even if their constraint is not comparable. All types allow doing that, but there currently is no way to write a generic function that does it.

The cmp package is one consumer of such mechanism, but not the only one. Personally, I ran into this with a container type wrapping map, where I would have preferred not to store zero-values, as they take up memory without carrying any semantic benefit for my use case, where "not stored" and "the zero value" where semantically equivalent.

I think it's fair to criticize arguments like the explainability or readability of *new(T) for their subjectivity. But this particular problem has no solution without a language change. And "I don't like the package name cmp" is obviously not a very compelling reason not to add such a mechanism.

[jimmyfrasche]

this proposal would also satisfy #26842.

@rsc would accepting this proposal also involve changing cmp.Or to accept any type and use == zero or would that need to be a separate proposal?

@josharian #21182 could be additionally accepted. It would be less needed than it is now but there's still an argument to its utility and if it were accepted instead of this proposal there'd still be a need for the additional functionality contained in this proposal.

[seebs]

I like this a lot. I also like _ for the universal-zero.

What I almost want is for zero to be a valid value for every non-pointer value, but not for pointers, which need nil. I say "almost" because in some contexts, especially generics, I don't know whether a value happens to be pointer-ish.

What I really want is "zero is a universal zero that you can use except when you know you are thinking about a thing in pointer terms, in which case you want nil". Although thinking about it more, at least two cases where I currently use nil (slices, maps), I think "zero" would be comparably/similarly expressive.

I am now very conflicted on whether I think it's more consistent to call the zero value for a slice zero or nil in such a case. I definitely prefer nil for pointers, though.

[seebs]

Okay but thinking about it more, I have concluded:

I would also be fine with just extending nil to all types, including non-pointer types. I'm not actually going to be particularly confused by seeing return nil, err in a function returning a non-pointer type for any length of time, we already have the word, and it's good at expressing "i don't actually want/need a value here".

Observation: That you can use nil for slices, maps, and interface values, and in each case it means a thing that is more complex than a simple "nil pointer" is sort of an argument that we already effectively do this. We have at least three things which are, internally, actually structs of some kind, for which nil is a valid value.