> You're basically just asking for exceptions in that case I'm asking for certain semantics. The syntax does matter and could be a lot more concise than stand

> You're basically just asking for exceptions in that case I'm asking for certain semantics. The syntax does matter and could be a lot more concise than standard exceptions (try/catch). For example this is concise where the called function returns a value and an error and requires no extra try/catch/return or similar syntactical decoration. // leave out ,err so it automatically gets returned value = function(); // same thing function(); // deliberate ignoring value, _ = function(); // actually use error value, err = function(); if ... { ... } > Yes, it's explicit error handling. Yes, it's griped about on every, single HN thread about Go. And the mailing list, extensively. There is a chance all those people are right! > ... do you call checkError() on your PrintStream ... Which shows exactly why requiring manual checking is a problem. The problem with Java is checked exceptions which do not work well (the checked part). I'm surprised they haven't been relaxed yet.