2 ms·
That being the case, you should change the doc, because it's an important distinction. Speaking personally, I have found in my own Rust that the presence of the
by bcantrill 8y ago
That being the case, you should change the doc, because it's an important distinction. Speaking personally, I have found in my own Rust that the presence of the propagation operator does not, in fact, come with the "likely omission of proper handling"; to the contrary, it has allowed me to (properly) propagate errors that I can't meaningfully add context to, and to (properly) handle those errors that I can handle -- all with very readable code that doesn't involve error-prone boilerplate.
- stouset 8y agoYeah, the underhanded comment "the convenience of the ? operator comes with the likely omission of proper handling" is not only unnecessary but completely wrong in my experience. It strikes me as if the author hasn't actually ever used or investigated the language in any kind of depth, and took a wild guess that "making propagating errors easy means people don't actually deal with errors" or something. In practice, writing `?` is no more or less automatic than `if foo, err := someFunc(bar); err != nil { return nil, err }`, but the difference is that it's immediately obvious when special error-handling logic has been added, by the simple fact of its existence.