| ▲ | hambes 5 days ago |
| It might look worse than catch, but it's much more predictable and less goto-y. |
|
| ▲ | guappa 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| goto was only bad when used to save code and jump indiscriminately. To handle errors is no problem at all. |
| |
| ▲ | froh 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | yes, yes, yes! see the Linux Kernel for plenty of such good and readable uses of go-to, considered useful: "on error, jump there in the cleanup sequence ..." | |
| ▲ | _flux 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | ..as long as you don't make mistakes. I fixed enough goto bugs in Xorg when I was fixing Coverity-issues in Xorg that I can see the downsides of this easy way of error handling. | | |
| ▲ | guappa 4 days ago | parent [-] | | We're comparing to go here, not with a language with proper error handling. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | int_19h 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If "catch" is goto-y (and it kinda is), then so is "defer". |
