Wojciech, you're right: It'll effectively work as a "catch" (or "recover");
e.g. something like:
defer func() {
if err := recover(); err != nil {
fmt.Printf("ERROR: %v\n", err)
}
}()
The only difference is that we wouldn't have to "throw" or "panic". The
compiler would just "watch" the "behaviour" of the error variable.
But, hey, I think we're all very happy with the options we have to handle
errors in Go: we have the "error" keyword AND panic/recover! That's great!
Also, I think we're just wondering whether a "syntactical sugar" is worth
in Go or not (speaking for myself, of course).
Best wishes.
Dorival
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:07:12 PM UTC+10, ohir wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 00:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
> Dorival Pedroso <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> > I realised I've written 569 "if err != nil":
> > And I've written 231 error messages
> > And I have a feeling that I've done only 20% of the error messages...
>
> Factor 2,46 so far.
>
> It directly *proves* that any 'watch' construct would get us soon to
> 'spooky
> action at distance' at massive scale. What is now written just after call
> would get a trip to some distant watch block and be 'cased' there.
>
> So why call it 'watch' at all? It would be simply a 'catch' :)
>
> BAD.
>
> > See the messages
> > here: https://gist.github.com/cpmech/d2e36dcbe277cd72605f3732d79c798b
>
>
> --
> Wojciech S. Czarnecki
> << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE
>
--
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.
