On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:33 PM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > there recently was a thread on /r/golang, about whether or not to explicitly > return useless values when an error occurred, or to just not care, as the > caller isn't supposed to use a return value on a non-nil value anyway.
I follow a simple policy: normally, when returning an error, return zero values for all the other result parameters. if there is a reason to do anything else (e.g., io.Reader explicitly permits returning n > 0 with a non-nil error), then I document the behavior. I can't say that I fully grasp the argument you are presenting. I do feel that it does not make sense to return an invalid, non-zero, value when returning an error. What would be the point of that? Ian -- 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.
