Did I break a taboo by doing this?
You must log in or register to comment.
I would rename Check to Must which there is at least some precedent for.
Oh yeah and it’s also less to type. Good idea!
Edit: here’s the change https://github.com/danhab99/idk/blob/main/idk.go#L13
I don’t think it is a taboo, but it is possibly just worse code in many cases. Handling error values is usually something that should be done thoughtfully. Panic is nice but can easily be overused and should not make it out of a package.
I too wish there was a better way, but in the form of proper enums and result and option types. However, wrapping in functions is fine in some cases not taboo.
As an aside, you probably don’t need a static union type for your min and max functions. I assume you could use
comparable.As an aside, you probably don’t need a static union type for your min and max functions. I assume you could use
comparable.comparibleonly allows==Oh right! What am I saying?
contraints.Orderedmaybe.I just looked at the standard docs and I didn’t realize there was a built-in min and max function. Y’all should really read the standard lib docs… it’s fascinating in there.
There is! See “Errors are values” from the Go blog: https://go.dev/blog/errors-are-values
Yeah I know about that article… Then again… I’m lazy
I would call it a taboo because it diverges from the general best practice. That makes your code harder to read and understand for people less familiar with “your style”. Given that code is read much more often that it is written, you are optimizing on the wrong end.
I too consider that
if err != nila bit complicated to type. Most times, I wrap it away in a function like yourCheck0. I know that the major “framework” for command line applications (cobra) has a similar logic with itscheckErrorfunction.
