[hibbelig]

> I really dislike exceptions because there's no documentation for how a function can fail. For this reason I prefer go style errors, which are an improvement on the C error story. Yes it has warts, but it's 80% good enough.

I’m not a go developer. How does go document how a function can fail?

A Java developer can use checked exceptions so that some information is in the signature. For unchecked exceptions the documentation must explain.

I guess in Go the type of the error return value provides some information but the rest needs to be filled in by the documentation, just like the Java checked exceptions case.

[mtzet]

> I’m not a go developer. How does go document how a function can fail?

There's no magic to it. Errors are values, so it's a part of the function signature that there's an error code to check. In C++ any function can throw an exception and there's no way of knowing that it wont.

It's true that go doesn't document what _kinds_ of errors it can throw, but at least I know there's something to check.

[vips7L]

But that doesn’t document _how_ a function can fail. Just that it _can_ fail.