In the strongest possible terms, no.

See #40432.

Especially: https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/go2draft-error-handling-overview.md
For why implicit checking/implicit results is not prefered for error handling.

Just to play around with this a little, how do defers work in this framework? Does a throw still run queued defer statements? Would they run after the thrown exception was caught and handled?

How can callers know that a function can throw (the "implicit checking/results" problem)? Pushing that into tooling doesn't seem to really solve the problem, because it requires people to set up and use the tool globally and consistently.

For language change proposals, please fill out the template at https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/refs/heads/master/go2-language-changes.md .

When you are done, please reply to the issue with @gopherbot please remove label WaitingForInfo.

Thanks!

@gopherbot please remove label WaitingForInfo.

@deltamualpha

how do defers work in this framework? Does a throw still run queued defer statements? Would they run after the thrown exception was caught and handled?

It doesn't affect how defer works. It's standalone, similar to the "check/handle proposal".

How can callers know that a function can throw (the "implicit checking/results" problem)? Pushing that into tooling doesn't seem to really solve the problem, because it requires people to set up and use the tool globally and consistently.

For example

fmt.Fprintln(os.Stdout, "")

If you don't use tools like errcheck, people will forget to handle the error here.

Why can't we use a similar tool to indicate if a function will throw? In IDE it might look like this:

Just for the demo, we could use a better sign or color other than !.

It's very easy to recursively analyze the code to know if a throw is not caught by any catch.

It doesn't affect how defer works.

Throws semantics need to be explicitly defined as its introduces new control flow.
What happens when a throw is executed in a defer? Do the other defers still run?

It's very easy to recursively analyze the code to know if a throw is not caught by any catch.

This is not possible statically when reflect Call, function variables and plugins are involved without explicit anotation.

Errors are different in that the function signature shows explicitly whether an error is returned or not.

This is not possible statically when reflect Call, function variables and plugins are involved without explicit anotation.

I think it's the same as Go1's error. If you return an error as an interface, it will be hard to tell when a function will return an error or not.

What happens when a throw is executed in a defer? Do the other defers still run?

Good point, I will take some time to add some examples for them.

I think it's the same as Go1's error. If you return an error as an interface, it will be hard to tell when a function will return an error or not.

True but there was no claim here that its possible to know where all error values are originating from either. Errors dominately are returned as error types directly which is possible to analyse statically and not as interface{}. This analysis also doesnt need whole program inter package analysis as knowing function signatures is enough. As there would be no explicit annotation for throws the analysis is quite a bit harder and has more commonly used language cases like function variables and reflect Calls where it will expensive or not knowable if a throw can happen.

At least we should avoid talking about "plugin" which is even unusable on Windows: #19282 (this 2017 issue is still open)

For reflect, even you try to use reflect to hide throw, you will end up calling something like relfect.Throw which can still be statically analyzed.

reflect can call normal go methods by name just fine. There is not constraint in the proposal or language that enforces functions called with reflect to need to use reflect.Throw.

Its similar how fmt can not statically know if a Stringer implementing type that is passed in has the potential to panic or not. It needs to assume any function can panic.

fmt.Printf("%s", foo) what types of exceptions would foo's potential String method be able to throw? foo might be any type due to being stored in an interface{} and handed around in the code.

At any rate. These question all reflect that implicit error checking/flow has issues and I dont think they can be satisfactory solved trying to mitigate them with expensive static analysis.

fmt.Printf("%s", foo) what types of exceptions would foo's potential String method be able to throw? foo might be any type due to being stored in an interface{} and handed around in the code.

The analyzer can tell you are passing function foo that can throw to function fmt.Printf that doesn't have catch to handle the throw.

The analyzer can tell you are passing function foo that can throw to function fmt.Printf that doesn't have catch to handle the throw.

The analyzer can not know that in all cases if e.g. foo being an interface{} value (containing a type implementing Formatter or Stringer or something else) that came from somewhere populated at run time. The analyzer can be defensive and if can not be proven otherwise always assume there can be a throw but then there will be lots of places annotated with can throw which can lead to alot of boilerplate catching.

I dont think the analyzer will be fast (requires whole program analysis) nor easy and it requires to use an IDE to better understand where errors/exceptions can come from. Happy to be proven otherwise.

foo being an interface{} value

If we use reflect to create a DSL, we literally can do whatever we want without any constrains. We can even use reflect to dynamically create functions with dynamic signatures. Even with Go1's error, it will be hard to understand the code. This proposal is not meant to improve how we use reflect.

The analyzer can be defensive and if can not be proven otherwise always assume there can be a throw but then there will be lots of places annotated with can throw which can lead to alot of boilerplate catching.

Such as python or javascript, they don't use catch everywhere. As long as you catch at their parent node, the analyzer shouldn't complain.

I dont think the analyzer will be fast (requires whole program analysis) nor easy and it requires to use an IDE to better understand where errors/exceptions can come from. Happy to be proven otherwise.

I think the complexity is O(n). As long as it's not O(n^2) I think we shouldn't define it's slow. We have a good language server which can cache the result. One node's change won't affect the whole tree, it will only affect functions depend on it.

Have you seen https://golang.org/doc/faq#exceptions ?

That said:

I don't understand the difference between throw and panic.

I don't understand the difference between catch and a deferred function that calls recover.

I don't understand the difference between guard and

func Guard(f func()) (err error) {
    defer func() {
        if r := recover(); r != nil {
           err = r.(error)
        }
    }()
    f()
}

@ianlancetaylor

Have you seen https://golang.org/doc/faq#exceptions ?

Yes, I use Go for many years now, I think I know most of the debates and how hard it will be to challenge such a topic.

I don't understand the difference between throw and panic

There are a lot. For example, panic will crash the application, throw won't. It's the same as when you forget to handle the err returned from a function, nothing will happen. We can discuss how to handle uncaught errors. Such as nodejs' uncaught exception.

I don't understand the difference between catch and a deferred function that calls recover.

My example above already showed, in catch you have to return all values of the return signature. defer doesn't.

I don't understand the difference between guard and

guard can handle and return generic type, just like the append(T, ...T) T can accept and return type in a generic fashion.

Thanks. I think you need to write down the precise semantics of these new constructs, because I do not understand them. All I've seen so far is examples and implementation. My apologies if I've missed a description.

@ianlancetaylor Thank you for your feedback. After collecting more feedbacks I will try to add precise semantics, I may also modify the specs while reviewing them. I searched things like "golang where to share language draft design" with no luck. So I shared it here, hope to find people who have the willingness to work on this idea together.

@ysmood this may be useful for your proposal. https://github.com/golang/proposal#proposing-changes-to-go

you didn't fix the chaining issue. the goal seemed to be making chaining easier (so that one could do foo().bar() with proper error handling), but you still didn't allow chaining with your solution. i'm confused about what problem this solves.

but you still didn't allow chaining with your solution

Sorry, what you do mean? Can you give more details about your concern?

i had misread part of the proposal, my bad. i was confused for a reason, haha

Based on the discussion above and the emoji voting, this is a likely decline. Leaving open for four weeks for final comments.

No further discussion.