There are two things I think you could have as implict in Go - error values, and contexts.

Just pass along two hidden variables for both in parameters and returns, and would anything really change that the compiler wouldn't be able to follow?

i.e. most functions return errors, so there should always be an implicit error return possible even if I don't use it. Let the compiler figure out if it needs to generate code for it.

And same story for contexts: why shouldn't a Go program be a giant context tree? If a branch genuinely doesn't ever use it, the compiler should be able to just knock the code out.

▲

maleldil 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What's the difference between an implicit error and exceptions? Being explicit about errors is good. Go's syntactical implementation, coupled with its unexpressive type system, is the problem.

	▲	XorNot 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I will freely go on the record as saying that there's nothing wrong with exceptions for this exact reason: errors are so common that a function being "pure" is the exception, and that errors-as-value handling invariable turns into an endless chain of something like "if err; return (nil/zero, err)" in every language which tries it. The same would apply to anytime you have Result types - ultimately its still just syntactic sugar over "if err then...". What's far more common in real programs is that an error can occur somewhere where you do not have enough context to handle or resolve it, or you're unaware it can happen. In which case the concept of exceptions is much more valid: "if <bad thing here> what do I want to do?" usually only has a couple of places you care about the answer (i.e. "bad thing happened during business process, so start unwinding that process" and many more where the answer is either "crash" or "log it and move on to the next item".