Ah the old nil values boxed into non-nil interfaces. Even after 8 years writing go code almost every day this still bites me occasionally. I've never seen code that actually uses this. I understand why it is the way it is but I hate it.
replies(4):
Then again that would mean that the nil identifier would be coerced into a typed nil and we would check for the nilness of what is inside an interface in any(somepointer) == nil.
wrt the current behavior, it also makes sense to have a nil value that remains untyped. But in many other cases we do have that automatic inference/coercion, for instance when we set a pointer to nil.(p = nil)
That's quite subtle and that ship has sailed though.
It's not straightforward but probably something that will be considered at some point I reckon when thinking about making union interfaces first class. That will require to track a not nil typestate/predicate in the backend, something like that I guess.
basically `if v.(nil){...}
creates two branches. In one we know v is not nil (outside the if block) and it can therefore be assigned to non nillable variables so to speak...
In light of that fact, it would cause the interface rules to grow a unique wart that doesn't accomplish anything if interfaces tried to ban putting "nil" pointers into them. The correct answer is to not to create invalid values in the first place [1] and basically "don't do that", but that's not a "don't do that because it ought to do what you think and it just doesn't for some reason", it's a "don't do that because what you think should happen is in fact wrong and you need to learn to think the right thing".
Interfaces can not decide to not box nil values, because interfaces are not supposed to "know" what is and is not a legal value that implements them. It is the responsibility of the code that puts a value into the interface to ensure that the value correctly implements the interface. Note how you could not have io.Reader label itself as "not containing a nil" in my example above, because io.Reader has no way to "know" what my Repeater is. The job of an io.Reader value is to Read([]byte) (int error), and if it can't do that, it is not io.Reader's "fault". It is the fault of the code that made a promise that some value fits into the io.Reader interface when it doesn't.
In Go, nil is not the same thing as invalid [2] and until you stop forcing that idea into the language from other previous languages you've used you're going to not just have a bad time here, but elsewhere as well, e.g., in the behavior of the various nil values for slice and map and such.
One can more justifiably make the complaint that there is often no easy way to make a clearly-invalid value in Go the way a sum type can clearly declare an "Invalid/None/Empty/NULL", or even declare multiple such values in a single type if the semantics call for it, but that's a separate issue and doesn't make "nil" be the invalid value in current Go. Go does not have a dedicated "invalid" value, nor does it have a value of a given type that methods can not be called on.
(You can also ask for Go to have more features that make it harder to stick invalid values into an interface, but if you try to follow that to the point where it is literally impossible, you end up in dependently-typed languages, which currently have no practical implementations. Nothing can prevent you, in any current popular language, from labelling a bit of code as implementing an interface/trait/set of methods and simply being wrong about that fact. So it's all a question of where the tradeoffs are in the end, since "totally accurately correct interfaces" are not currently known to even be possible.)
What's frustrating is that 99.99% of written go code doesn't work this way and so people _do_ shoot themselves in the foot all the time, and so at some point you have to concede that what we have might be logical but it isn't intuitive. And that kinda sucks for a language that prides itself on simplicity.
I also get that there's no easy way to address this. The best I can imagine is a way to declare that a method Y on type x can't take nil so (*x)(nil) shouldn't be considered as satisfying that method on an interface.. and thus not boxed automatically into that interface type. But yeah I get that's gonna get messy. If I could think of a good solution I'd make a proposal.
If you understand that there isn't really a fix and just wish there was one anyhow, while I still disagree in some details it's in the range I wouldn't fuss about. I understand that sort of wishing perfectly; don't think there's ever been a language I've used for a long time that I've had similar sorts of "I just wish it could work this way even though I understand why it can't." Maybe someday we'll be "blessed" with some sort of LLM-based language that can do things like that... for better or for worse.
You are not wrong that it is a sharp edge. Completely removing nils from interfaces is not possible because: 1. not backward compatible
However I would nuance a little. Having an empty interface ie. a untyped nil is useful. Having typed nils in interfaces is arguable. Because every value type that has methods can make pointer. That means potential deref if any such pointer is passed to an interface variable instead of the value itself.
Being able to keep nil from some interfaces would be useful.
You're not wrong. In general there is not much value in having working methods on a typed nil pointer.
If we think in terms of bottom wrt type theory, yes it is supposed to implement every type. But that would be closer to untyped nil and that's not how go's type system works either. It is close though. We just don't have a language concept for nillable int because variables are auto initialized to 0. And because it would be difficult to encode such an information purely virtually. But that could be possible in theory, without mechanical sympathy. I digress. The takeaway is that I don't think a linter can do the trick easily but there has been good attempts. And it is worth pondering, you're right.