If all of the values are non-nil, then `retnn nil, err` would not return,
would it? Did I miss something?
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 2:38:05 PM UTC-7, Nathan Fisher wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've been contemplating alternative methods to address the "boiler plate"
> of error handling in Go. One of the main benefits I see to the current
> approach is that indentation highlights exception paths vs the success
> path. From a readability perspective I can see the benefit of this
> approach. It allows a reader to efficiently scan a function.
>
> One problem I see with the approach however is that it results in a lot of
> vertical expansion in the code. If you take a fail-fast and return such as
> the following it requires 4 lines of code for every check or worse people
> ignore the error with an underscore.
>
> r, err := os.Open("blah.txt")
> if err != nil {
> return nil, err
> }
>
> What I've been thinking about is a return statement that will return only
> if all of the values are non-nil/blank.
>
> The statement would enable you to replace the above with a single return
> as follows;
>
> r, err := os.Open("blah.text")
> retnn nil, err
>
> I'm not wedded to the statement name retnn but more the general principle.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Nathan
>
--
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.
