I do like the idea, but the form looks strange IMO. I'd rather make the "Must" convention a new keyword for the first example, and another one for the second (though I don't see a clear keyword for that).
For a panic on error you'd write : data := must error_func() Maybe the "try" keyword would be a good choice for the second example since it's been clearly stated that try ... catch blocks won't be implemented in go, which would give something like : data, err := try panic_func() But somehow it sounds quite redundant with the possibility to recover from panics? Don't know Le jeu. 22 nov. 2018 à 11:16, 'yinbingjun' via golang-nuts < golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> a écrit : > For an error function: > > data, err := error_func(…..) > > can be changed to panic style: > > data := panic error_func(……) > > > > And for a panic function: > > data := panic_func(……) > > can be changed to error style: > > data, err := error panic_func(…...) > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
