▲ | gwd 4 days ago | |
Well no, the second "if" statement is a red herring. Both of the following work:
and
He even says as much:> Even if we change that to :=, we’re left to wonder why err is in scope for (potentially) the rest of the function. Why? Is it read later? My initial reaction was: "The first `err` is function-scope because the programmer made it function-scope; he clearly knows you can make them local to the if, so what's he on about?` It was only when I tried to rewrite the code to make the first `err` if-scope that I realized the problem I guess he has: OK, how do you make both `err` variable if-scope while making `bar` function-scope? You'd have to do something like this:
Which is a lot of cruft to add just to restrict the scope of `err`. |