Skip to content


Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP
branch: master
Fetching contributors…

Cannot retrieve contributors at this time

482 lines (363 sloc) 14.374 kb

Methods: a taste of OOP

In the previous chapter, we saw some nice things to do with functions as values that can be assigned to variables, passed to and returned from other functions. We finished with the fact that we actually can use functions as struct fields.

Today, we'll see a kind of an extrapolation of functions, that is functions with a receiver, which are called methods.

What is a method?

Suppose that you have a struct representing a rectangle. And you want this rectangle to tell you its own area.

The way we'd do this with functions would be something like this:


Area of r1 is: 24
Area of r2 is: 36

This works as expected, but in the example above, the function area is not part of the Rectangle type. It expects a Rectangle parameter as its input.

Yes, so what? You'd say. No problem, it's just if you decide to add circles and triangles and other polygons to your program, and you want to compute their areas, you'd have to write different functions with different names for a functionality or a characteristic that is, after all, the same.

You'd have to write: area_rectangle, area_circle, area_triangle...

And this is not elegant. Because the area of a shape is a characteristic of this shape. It should be a part of it, belong to it, just like its other fields.

And this leads us to methods: A method is function that is bound or attached to a given type. Its syntax is the same as a traditional function except that we specify a receiver of this type just after the keyword func.

In the words of Rob Pike:

"A method is a function with an implicit first argument, called a receiver."

func (ReceiverType r) func_name (parameters) (results)

Let's illustrate this with an example:


Area of r1 is: 24
Area of r2 is: 36
Area of c1 is: 314.1592653589793
Area of c2 is: 1963.4954084936207

A few things to note about methods:

  • Methods of different receivers are different methods even if they share the name.
  • A method has access to its receiver's fields (data).
  • A method is called with the dot notation like struct fields.

So? Are methods applicable only for struct types? The anwser is No. In fact, you can write methods for any named type that you define, that is not a pointer:

If you missed the comma remark, go back and re-read the code carefully.


The sum of ints in the slice s is: 15
The older in the map folks is: Popey

Now, wait a minute! (You say this with your best Bill Cosby's impression) What is this "named types" thing that you're telling me now? Sorry, my bad. I didn't need to tell you before. And I didn't want to distract you with this detail back then.

It's in fact easy. You can define new types as much as you want. struct is in fact a specific case of this syntax. Look back, we actually used this in the previous chapter!

You can create aliases for built-in and composite types with the following syntax:

type type_name type_literal


See? It's actually easy, and it can be handy to give more meaning to your code, by giving names to complicated composite -- or even simple -- types.

Back to our methods.

So, yes, you can define methods for any named type, even if it's an alias to a pre-declared type. Needless to say that you can define as many methods, for any given named type, as you want.

Let's see a more advanced example, and we will discuss some details of it just after.

Tis the story of a set of colored boxes. They have widths, heights, depths and colors of course! We want to find out the color of the biggest box, and eventually paint them all black (Because you know... I see a red box, and I want it painted black...)

Here we Go!


We have 6 boxes in our set
The volume of the first one is 64 cm³
The color of the last one is YELLOW
The biggest one is WHITE
Let's paint them all black
The color of the second one is BLACK
Obviously, now, the biggest one is BLACK

So we defined some consts with consecutive values using the iota idiom to represent some colors.

And then we declared some types:

  1. Color which is an alias to byte.
  2. Box struct to represent a box, it has three dimensions and a color.
  3. BoxList which is a slice of Box.

Simple and straightforward.

Then we wrote some methods for these types:

  • Volume() with a receiver of type Box that returns the volume of the received box.
  • SetColor(c Color) sets its receiver's color to c.
  • BiggestsColor() with a receiver of type BoxList returns the color of the Box with the biggest volume that exists within the slice.
  • PaintItBlack() with a receiver of type BoxList sets the colors of all Boxes in the slice to BLACK.
  • String() a method with a receiver of type Color returns a string representation of this color.

All this is simple. For real. We translated our vision of the problem into things that have methods that describe and implement a behavior.

Pointer receivers

Now, look at line 25 that I highlighted on purpose. The receiver is a pointer to Box! Yes, you can use *Box too. The restriction with methods is that the type Box itself (or any receiver's type) shouldn't be a pointer.

Why did we use a pointer? You have 10 seconds to think about it, and then read on the next paragraph. I'll start counting:

10, 9, 8...


Ok! Let's find out if you were correct. We used a pointer because we needed the SetColor method to be able to change the value of the field 'color' of its receiver. If we did not use a pointer, then the method would recieve a copy of the receiver b (passed by value) and hence the changes that it will make will affect the copy only, not the original.

Think of the receiver as a parameter that the method has in input, and ensure that you understand and remember the difference between :ref:`passing by value and reference<value-reference>`.

Structs and pointers simplification

Again with the method SetColor, intelligent readers (You are one of them, this I know!) would say that we should have written (*b).color = c instead of b.color = c, since we need to dereference the pointer b to access the field color.

This is true! In fact, both forms are accepted because Go knows that you want to access the fields of the value pointed to by the pointer (since a pointer has no notion of fields) so it assumes that you wanted (*b) and it simplifies this for you. Look Ma, Magic!

Even more simplification

Experienced readers will also say:

"On line 43 where we call SetColor on bl[i], shouldn't it be (&bl[i]).SetColor(BLACK) instead? Since SetColor expects a pointer of type *Box and not a value of type Box?"

This is also quite true! Both forms are accepted. Go automatically does the conversion for you because it knows what type the method expects as a receiver.

In other words:

If a method M expects a receiver of type *T, you can call the method on a variable V of type T without passing it as &V to M.


If a method M expects a receiver of type T, you can call the method on a variable P of type *T without passing it as *P to M.



i is equal to 10
Let's increment it twice
i is equal to 11
i is equal to 12
Let's print it twice
The number is equal to 12
The number is equal to 12

So don't worry, Go knows the type of a receiver, and knowing this it simplifies by accepting V.M() as a shorthand of (&V).M() and P.M() as a shorthand for (*P).M().

Anyone who has done much C/C++ programming will have realized at this point the world of pain that Go saves us from by simply using sane assumptions.

Well, well, well... I know these pointers/values matters hurt heads, take a break, go out, have a good coffee, and in the next chapter we will see some cool things to do with methods.

Jump to Line
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.