Hi,
Error management in Go is perfect!
But I like the idea of `watch` (may we drop the `if`?)
So, `watch` would work in the context of a function like `defer`. However,
this would effectively become a `catcher` for errors (instead of `panics`)
within the `defer` function, right?
Also, I think `watch` would effectively be a "conditioned defer".
Once, I've spent hours adding `if err != nil { ... }` elsewhere in my code.
Lately, I've started using two auxiliary functions just for readability:
In tests, I use:
func status(tst *testing.T, err error) {
if err != nil {
tst.Errorf("ERROR: %v\n", err)
tst.FailNow()
}
}
func TestBessel01(tst *testing.T) {
dat, err := ReadTable("data/as-9-bessel-integer-big.cmp")
status(tst, err)
...
}
In "main functions", I use:
func status(err error) {
if err != nil {
io.Pf("ERROR: %v\n", err)
os.Exit(1)
}
}
I (try to) check the errors everywhere in the API and these "syntax sugars"
are only required at the final stages ("test mode" or "main function").
So, `watch` could be something like:
func TestBessel01(tst *testing.T) {
watch err error // the compiler could detect that we're on "test" mode
and then return when err != nil
dat, err := ReadTable("data/as-9-bessel-integer-big.cmp")
err = ComputeWithData(dat)
...
err = DoSomethingElse(dat)
...
}
In "main functions":
func main() {
watch err error // the compiler would detect that we're on "main
function" mode and then Exit(1)
err := ComputeWithData(...)
}
The command `watch` could even be used for different purposes; e.g. when
something that should be <nil> isn't.
Cheers.
D
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:27:20 AM UTC+10,
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> at first I though I really like the idea of how Go deals with error
> management and handling, but the more Go code I look at or try to program,
> the more I get scared about checking errors every second line in every
> given block of code.
>
> Take a look at this example here from "Build Web Application with Golang":
>
> // insert
> stmt, err := db.Prepare("INSERT INTO userinfo(username, departname, created)
> values(?,?,?)")
> if err != nil {
> // handle error
> }
> res, err := stmt.Exec("astaxie", "研发部门", "2012-12-09")
> if err != nil {
> // handle error
> }
> id, err := res.LastInsertId()
> if err != nil {
> // handle error
> }
> fmt.Println(id)
> // update
> stmt, err = db.Prepare("update userinfo set username=? where uid=?")
> if err != nil {
> // handle error
> }
> res, err = stmt.Exec("astaxieupdate", id)
> if err != nil {
> // handle error
> }
> affect, err := res.RowsAffected()
> if err != nil {
> // handle error
> }
>
>
> Seriously? And yes, I have read https://blog.golang.org/errors-are-values.
> ..
>
> The best case reduction I found is:
>
> ...
> res, err = stmt.Exec("astaxieupdate", id)
> checkError(err)
> ...
>
> Still, I need this after each line of calling a function which may return
> an error.
>
> I bet this is not pleasant to do in larger code bases and it also takes
> away focus from what is actually happening.
>
> 50-80% of all lines of code in my example deal with error handling?
>
> This is not good. Seriously.
>
> And don't get me wrong, there is a lot of things I really like, love and
> adore about Go, but catching errors needs an improved syntax!
>
> And I am not proposing try...catch here.
>
> How about introducing a new piece of syntax
>
> "watch if .... "
>
> which tells the compiler to watch out for changes in a given SimpleStmt
>
> The same code as above would look like this:
>
> var err Error
>
> watch if err != nil {
> // handle error(s)
> }
>
> // insert
> stmt, err := db.Prepare("INSERT INTO userinfo(username, departname,
> created) values(?,?,?)")
> res, err := stmt.Exec("astaxie", "研发部门", "2012-12-09")
> id, err := res.LastInsertId()
> fmt.Println(id)
>
> // update
> stmt, err = db.Prepare("update userinfo set username=? where uid=?")
> res, err = stmt.Exec("astaxieupdate", id)
> affect, err := res.RowsAffected()
>
>
> - The "watch if" would be executed after each assignment of any of the
> variables used in SimpleStmt of the statement.
> - Multiple "watch if" would be executed in order or appearance
> - The "watch if" could be used like "defer..." inside functions
> - The "watch if" would work in its full scope of the watched variables
>
> I am not a language expert, so may be there is a saner way of expression
> what I want to achieve.
>
> But bottom line is, there should by an easier to read and write way to
> deal with errors in Go.
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
