3 ms·
1. As explained in the proposal, try is not a keyword, but a built-in function. 2. Returning if there is an error is the whole point of this proposal. 3. I do
by ngrilly 7y ago
1. As explained in the proposal, try is not a keyword, but a built-in function.
2. Returning if there is an error is the whole point of this proposal.
3. I don't understand your point. Could you provide an example?
4. try is explicit. There is no implicit behavior or stack unwinding.
- uryga 7y agoit uses the same syntax as functions, but it doesn't behave like a function – functions generally can't manipulate control flow like that. so calling it a function is weird because it's closer to a language construct like `await`
- ngrilly 7y agoWe already have one built-in function that alters the control flow: panic. But I agree it's a bit weird.
- uryga 7y agotbh i don't know Go too well. as i understand it, `panic` can indeed hijack the control flow, i.e. stop it. but any function¹ can do that: just do `while 1 {}`! control flow won't return to the caller either way. so it's not that weird after all Ruby blocks can do non-local control flow, i.e. return from their surrounding function, but that's what makes them distinct from functions. --- ¹ in a turing-complete language (i'm a Haskell enthusiast, so please excuse the nitpicking :)
- ngrilly 7y agoA panic can be recovered with recover(), and thus the program can continue. While a function that does an infinite loop will halt the program and nothing else.