Well, if the Go stdlib is haphazardly written and unidiomatic then I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that idiomatic Go, as per your definition, exists.
>more baseless ad-hominem and ignoring the points
I'll boil it down to one sentence: Go forces programmers to use (T, error) when it is not appropriate, and Go would be better if it did not.
Yeah, the older parts of the standard library are definitely not idiomatic. Lots of functions in the stdlib which return errors don't even return an error type. But, of course they aren't idiomatic. Idiomatacy is emergent. They couldn't possibly have been written idiomatically.
> I'll boil it down to one sentence: Go forces programmers to use (T, error) when it is not appropriate, and Go would be better if it did not.
That may be true, but of no relevance. I can see why I didn't bother reading it. Thanks for clarifying that it would have been a waste of my time.
>That may be true, but of no relevance.
So you agree with this, and it rebuts the entire contents of the first post I responded to. I wonder why you were posting irrelevant, off-topic content yourself. But I'm glad you finally agree that Go isn't flawless.
"That's the point. They are not equivalent, they represent different things" – Oh snap. Well, so much for that silly tangent.
If you want to actually have a discussion, you are going to have to go and understand the discussion that was taking place before you tried to take it in some weird and nonsensical direction. The non-sequitors may be entertaining, maybe even true, but off in la-la land with respect to the conversation taking place.
If your intent is simply to be my personal jester, then by all means, run with it. I'll continue to enjoy the laughs. Most people would pay good money to see an entertainer of this caliber, and you are offering it to me for free! I feel privileged.
> If a function returns an error, callers must treat all non-error return values as unspecified unless explicitly documented otherwise
It is absolutely not idiomatic to give any meaning to non-error values under error conditions in the usual case. That is extremely unusual and would be generally confusing.
https://google.github.io/styleguide/go/decisions#returning-e...
Based on what? We have come to see that it is beneficial to make zero values useful. In fact, Go Proverbs even says so. Likewise, we have learned it is useful to return the zero value when you have an error. Most commonly, this means returning nil, which is packed full of all kinds of useful information. Therefore, the T value can be expected to useful if the code is idiomatic.
I'd love to see some real-world code you think is idiomatic, but doesn't return a useful T value when there is an error.
> If a function returns an error, callers must treat all non-error return values as unspecified unless explicitly documented otherwise
This is not at odds with that. This merely warns that not all code you may call will be idiomatic. In fact, if I recall correctly, doesn't os.Open (maybe os.Create) return an invalid file handle in some error cases? The standard library is old and what helped us eventually see what is idiomatic. It is decidedly not idiomatic for the most part. If you rely on a function being written idiomatically, then you are going to run into trouble, as that is not a guarantee (unless the documentation provides such a guarantee).
But in the case of this Either wrapper, it explicitly states it is for use with idiomatic code, not any old code you can throw at it.
