Cause the objection for previous error handling is code coverage, the
solution is for code coverage tools to desugarize *rinn* syntax.
The objective to minimize error handling "noise" from human eyes.
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 9:29:44 AM UTC+7 Zakaria bin Haris wrote:
> For completeness if the function is something like:
>
> func x() (data *Data, err error) {
> }
>
> then *rinn* should be smart enough to assign error to err variable and
> just do return instead return err
>
> On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 9:19:48 AM UTC+7 Zakaria bin Haris wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I mean return if not nil, so it should be *rinn* or please find
>> some better keyword for this :^).
>>
>> On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 9:15:31 AM UTC+7 Zakaria bin Haris wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, gophers!
>>>
>>> Idk if this has been proposed or discussed before.
>>>
>>> Given the last error handling abbreviation proposal is rejected. How
>>> about some simple syntactic sugar like this:
>>>
>>> *rin* Something()
>>>
>>> Which is just a sugar for:
>>>
>>> if err := Something(); err != nil {
>>> return err
>>> }
>>>
>>> To make it worth the new keyword make it so that:
>>>
>>> *rin* v := Something()
>>>
>>> equals to:
>>>
>>> v, err := Something()
>>> if err != nil {
>>> return err
>>> }
>>>
>>
--
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/5a4471ca-adec-42b2-8af4-d9453f84247fn%40googlegroups.com.
