3 ms·

That just changes the boilerplate from if's to match's.

• Mawr 2y ago
  See the example with the `?` operator: https://github.com/borgo-lang/borgo?tab=readme-ov-file#error-handling-with--operator https://github.com/borgo-lang/borgo?tab=readme-ov-file#error... The main benefits of a Result type are brevity and the inability to accidentally not handle an error.
  • RedComet 2y ago
    Yes, but that isn't necessarily a feature of option types. Is it the case that similar sugar for the tiresome Go pattern couldn't achieve similar benefits?
    • Mawr 2y ago
      Perhaps, but there have been several proposals along those lines and nobody seems capable of figuring out a sensible implementation. A funny drawback of the current Go design that a Result type would solve is the need to return zero values of all the declared function return types along with the error: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/21182 https://github.com/golang/go/issues/21182.
• BillyTheKing 2y ago
  exactly.. yes, I understand why ? is neat from a type POV since you specifically have to unwrap an optional type whereas in Go you can ignore a returned error (although linters catch that) - so at the end of the day it's just the same boilerplate, one with ? the other with err != nil