I forgot (again) to say that in this case the error would just be returned.
In other words, `watch err` would just check if `err != nil` and then
return.
The other cases (test, main) would be as explained earlier (FailNow(),
Exit(1))
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 10:14:16 AM UTC+10, Dorival Pedroso wrote:
>
> Hi, the `watch err` could also work in "APIs" that already return "error".
>
> For instance:
> package myapi
>
> func First() (err error) {
> watch err
> err = internalFunction(1,2,3)
> err = internalFunction(3,2,1)
> err = internalFunction(1,3,2)
> }
>
>
>
>
> 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.
