On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Alessio Gottardo <[email protected] > wrote: > > Out of curiosity is there a specific reason for `panic`ing in the > `default` case instead of returning an `error`?I just became aware of this > `recover` mechanism in go to handle a runtime `panic` thrown somewhere > else, but that's going to make the code quite a bit more complicated. I was > wondering if it would have been easier to return an error to whoever uses > the `amqp` go wrapper, but I see that could have quite of an impact on the > codebase as it is at the moment. > Thank you for the fix.Alessio >
I was thinking the same thing. I read somewhere that `panic`s in Go are intended to not cross library boundaries (and not be part of the API). -- Jiri Daněk
