Yes, Nigel! try/catch in Python may at times looks uglier that err != nil. I think the reason try/catch didn't bother us in C++ is that we had lots of macros to simplify the work...
In Go, we don't have macros but we don't need to wrap things with "try" and just need to "recover" panics, I think. That's why I prefer Martin's first suggestion (no "wrappings"). Wouldn't be great to have a "syntactical sugar" to make things (at least a little bit) simpler in our beloved Go language? Simpler would certainly encourage people to handle errors properly too as Axel pointed out. Cheers! On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:34:24 AM UTC+10, Nigel Tao wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Tim Uckun <timu...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > I don't see anything wrong with the try catch paradigm, > > Try-catch makes for shorter code when you're just passing the buck, > but it can be quite complicated when you actually need to handle the > buck. > > My showcase example for this is the exception-ridden code in PEP 380 just > after > > "The statement > RESULT = yield from EXPR > is semantically equivalent to" > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0380/ > > I find that Python snippet very hard to understand. In contrast, > writing all those "if err != nil { return nil, err }" might seem > verbose, but I find the control flow much easier to grok, especially > when reviewing somebody else's Go code, or even code written by > 6-months-ago me. > -- 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.
