4 ms·
Yup, don't allow nonsensical states (User+Exception or None+None) to even exist. The original is more like Go approach which is a big flaw with the language.
by progbits 3y ago
Yup, don't allow nonsensical states (User+Exception or None+None) to even exist.
The original is more like Go approach which is a big flaw with the language.
- goodoldneon 3y agoGo can be `tuple[User | None, Exception | None]` or `tuple[User, Exception | None]`, depending on whether you're returning a pointer. But yea, Go's approach has its warts. Like if you aren't returning a pointer then you need to return the zero value (e.g. `User{}`) even when returning an error
- progbits 3y agoYeah but pointer + nil also have issues: https://go.dev/doc/faq#nil_error https://go.dev/doc/faq#nil_error I've also seen APIs that allow returning both error and a value ("something went wrong, but here is a fallback or something") which are of course extremely confusing given the usual style.
- goodoldneon 3y agoOh I agree, I've run into too many nil pointer panics. I wish Go had a first-class way of expressing optionality, rather than using pointers