Re:Next steps toward Go 2
by marcus_holmes on Thursday June 27, 2019 @03:56AM
(#20292498)
I feel like there's also some "not invented here" syndrome going on.
Dep was pretty good, and there was absolutely the possibility of just making that official (and maybe tidying away a few of the points raised during the module discussion). But no, that wasn't good enough.
Dave Cheney's errors package (pkg/errors) is a great contribution to Go error handling, used by a lot of gophers. Adopting that would have been simple, backward-compatible, and given us better error handling. But no, that wasn't good enough.
I'm so used to "if err != nil" that it's punctuation for me. Having some code use "try" because it doesn't need to be wrapped, and other code use "if err != nil" is going to break that. I'll have to actually read the error handler now, in case it does something unexpected.
Or not use "try" and stick with errors.Wrap. That seems way more sensible to me.
Dep was pretty good, and there was absolutely the possibility of just making that official (and maybe tidying away a few of the points raised during the module discussion). But no, that wasn't good enough.
Dave Cheney's errors package (pkg/errors) is a great contribution to Go error handling, used by a lot of gophers. Adopting that would have been simple, backward-compatible, and given us better error handling. But no, that wasn't good enough.
I'm so used to "if err != nil" that it's punctuation for me. Having some code use "try" because it doesn't need to be wrapped, and other code use "if err != nil" is going to break that. I'll have to actually read the error handler now, in case it does something unexpected.
Or not use "try" and stick with errors.Wrap. That seems way more sensible to me.