This breaks go's readability and explicit nature. No thanks. The author doesn't understand the implications of the proposal. What if the args are in a different order returned? "foo, error" or "error, *foo" ? - I've seen many permutations of this. Being explicit about error handling is actually a good thing.
For clarity: The author is Ian Lance Taylor. He's a principal engineer at Google, on the Golang team, and the 4th largest contributor to the language. The personal attack on him not understanding the implications of the proposal is a bit cringe.
Comments
This breaks go's readability and explicit nature. No thanks. The author doesn't understand the implications of the proposal. What if the args are in a different order returned? "foo, error" or "error, *foo" ? - I've seen many permutations of this. Being explicit about error handling is actually a good thing.
For clarity: The author is Ian Lance Taylor. He's a principal engineer at Google, on the Golang team, and the 4th largest contributor to the language. The personal attack on him not understanding the implications of the proposal is a bit cringe.
I know who he is, I stand by my statement that the proposal is ill-advised.