If the objections on the too magical handle part, why not cut that part and
retain the check part?
Most of the time the we just forward the error on to the next level anyway.
Handling error is rarely done and should be explicit.
I got better keyword for this: reterr
A portmanteau of return error.
Pada tanggal Sen, 31 Agt 2020 10.34, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org>
menulis:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 7:16 PM Zakaria bin Haris <z4k4...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Idk if this has been proposed or discussed before.
> >
> > Given the last error handling abbreviation proposal is rejected. How
> about some simple syntactic sugar like this:
> >
> > rin Something()
> >
> > Which is just a sugar for:
> >
> > if err := Something(); err != nil {
> > return err
> > }
> >
> > To make it worth the new keyword make it so that:
> >
> > rin v := Something()
> >
> > equals to:
> >
> > v, err := Something()
> > if err != nil {
> > return err
> > }
>
> This is similar to the check/handle design draft, without the handle.
> You may want to take a look at https://golang.org/issue/40432.
> Thanks.
>
> 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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAET7USmazC1m-sWrXahCOptL2uGi5x2Xei2KySNx2Pc9ro9ipA%40mail.gmail.com.
