What's the meaning of interface{}?

I'm new to interfaces and trying to do SOAP request by github

I don't understand the meaning of

Msg interface{}

in this code:

type Envelope struct {
    Body `xml:"soap:"`
}

type Body struct {
    Msg interface{}
}

I've observed the same syntax in

fmt.Println

but don't understand what's being achieved by

interface{}

Note: Go 1.18 (Q1 2022) does rename interface{} to any (alias for interface{}).

See issue 49884, CL 368254 and commit 2580d0e.

See the last part of this answer.

You can refer to the article "How to use interfaces in Go" (based on "Russ Cox’s description of interfaces"):

What is an interface?

An interface is two things:

• it is a set of methods,

• but it is also a type

The interface{} type (or any with Go 1.18+), the empty interface is the interface that has no methods.

Since there is no implements keyword, all types implement at least zero methods, and satisfying an interface is done automatically, therefore all types satisfy the empty interface.

That means that if you write a function that takes an interface{} value as a parameter, you can supply that function with any value.

(That is what Msg represents in your question: any value)

func DoSomething(v interface{}) {
// ...
}

func DoSomething(v any) {
// ...
}


Here’s where it gets confusing:

inside of the DoSomething function, what is v's type?

Beginner gophers are led to believe that “v is of any type”, but that is wrong.

v is not of any type; it is of interface{} type.

When passing a value into the DoSomething function, the Go runtime will perform a type conversion (if necessary), and convert the value to an interface{} value.

All values have exactly one type at runtime, and v's one static type is interface{} (or any with Go 1.18+).

An interface value is constructed of two words of data:

• one word is used to point to a method table for the value’s underlying type,

• and the other word is used to point to the actual data being held by that value.

Addendum: This is were Russ's article is quite complete regarding an interface structure:
type Stringer interface {
String() string
}


Interface values are represented as a two-word pair giving a pointer to information about the type stored in the interface and a pointer to the associated data.

Assigning b to an interface value of type Stringer sets both words of the interface value.

The first word in the interface value points at what I call an interface table or itable (pronounced i-table; in the runtime sources, the C implementation name is Itab).

The itable begins with some metadata about the types involved and then becomes a list of function pointers.

Note that the itable corresponds to the interface type, not the dynamic type.

In terms of our example, the itable for Stringer holding type Binary lists the methods used to satisfy Stringer, which is just String: Binary's other methods (Get) make no appearance in the itable.

The second word in the interface value points at the actual data, in this case a copy of b.

The assignment var s Stringer = b makes a copy of b rather than point at b for the same reason that var c uint64 = b makes a copy: if b later changes, s and c are supposed to have the original value, not the new one.

Values stored in interfaces might be arbitrarily large, but only one word is dedicated to holding the value in the interface structure, so the assignment allocates a chunk of memory on the heap and records the pointer in the one-word slot.

Issue 33232 seems to point out to any as an alias to interface{} in Go 1.18 (Q1 2022)

Russ Cox explains:

-
'any' being only for constraints is a detail that will be in every writeup of generics - books, blog posts, and so on.
If we think we are likely to allow it eventually, it makes sense to allow it from the start and avoid invalidating all that written material.

-
'any' being only for constraints is an unexpected cut-out that reduces generality and orthogonality of concepts.
It's easy to say "let's just wait and see", but prescribing uses tends to create much more jagged features than full generality. We saw this with type aliases as well (and resisted almost all the proposed cut-outs, thankfully).

-
If 'any' is allowed in generics but not non-generic code, then it might encourage people to overuse generics simply because 'any' is nicer to write than 'interface{}', when the decision about generics or not should really be made by considering other factors.

-
If we allow 'any' for ordinary non-generic usage too, then seeing interface{} in code could serve as a kind of signal that the code predates generics and has not yet been reconsidered in the post-generics world.
Some code using interface{} should use generics. Other code should continue to use interfaces.

Rewriting it one way or another to remove the text 'interface{}' would give people a clear way to see what they'd updated and hadn't. (Of course, some code that might be better with generics must still use interface{} for backwards-compatibility reasons, but it can still be updated to confirm that the decision was considered and made.)

That thread also includes an explanation about interface{}:

It's not a special design, but a logical consequence of Go's

Stack Overflow Q#23148812, score: 251