I like this. A lot. It's clean and explicit. The reader only needs to understand that 'on' is a test for a nil value (vs 'if' which tests for boolean true).
On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 3:57:24 PM UTC-4, Liam wrote: > > This proposal has attracted modest attention from the Go team... > https://github.com/golang/go/issues/32611 > > It suggests: > > err := f() > on err, <single_statement> > > on err, return err // any type can be tested for non-zero > on err, return fmt.Errorf(...) > > on err, fmt.Println(err) // doesn't stop the function > on err, continue // retry in a loop > > on err, goto label // labeled handler invocation > on err, hname // named handler invocation > > > > And offers these possible extensions: > > on err, os.IsNotExist(err): <stmt> > on err, err == io.EOF: <stmt> > on err, err.(*os.PathError): <stmt> // doesn't panic if not a match > > on err, <condition>: <stmt> > on err: <stmt> // this pair provides if/else in 2 lines > > on err := f(), <stmt> // for assignment with single lvalue > > > > Other punctuation is possible, e.g. on (err) <stmt> > > Now if we could just convince the Go gods to prototype this along with > try() in 1.14 :-) > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/decc63a5-9e65-4e96-929f-76d44cf19e14%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
