Hi Dave On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Dave Cheney <d...@cheney.net> wrote: > If this function panic'd then people who raise issues to make it not panic, > or they would work around it with recover(), both of which would be in less > tested code paths.
As a newcomer to Go, it's fun to me that you call using recover a "work around". Throwing and catching an exception is the bread and butter of handling errors in all other languages I know :-) Having to test for a variable being non-nil and manually returning it up the call chain is very very clunky and yet it's seen as the ideomatic and good way in Go. That's very strange to me, and from reading about Go around the net, strange to a lot of people. -- Martin Geisler -- 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
