Spot on. Part of it is wanting errors-as-values without knowing what that is (which is good and contains a kernel of real insight), and part of it is assuming that error handling can be a negligible fraction of the work (which is the opposite of the truth and can only be achieved by doing a poor job of it.)
Ah yes, the age old "special values will signal an error, so we don't have to deal with error handling" approach. Which is always either a pitch for reinventing error handling in novel and ad hoc ways (usually bad), or for disregarding error handling altogether (always bad, sometimes entertaining).