Hacker News Reader

Comment by frou_dh | Hacker News Reader

I understand why that's useful. Now, is it safe to say that nothing else in the standard library intentionally surfaces a panic? I'm not trying to troll: I genuinely want to establish this!

View on HN

You have been mislead. Better advice for panicing in Go is to panic in truly exceptional or unrecoverable circumstances. For example, a programmer error (violating the terms of a function contract) is a perfectly reasonable justification for panicing across package boundaries.

The Go standard library:

    grep -nrHIF 'panic(' /opt/go/src/pkg/* | wc -l
    632

Note that this is somewhat inflated with a lot of `panic("unreachable")` calls. They are a symptom of the standard Go Compiler requiring a `return` on every code path of a function that returns at least one value. A `panic(...)` relaxes this requirement. In this case, a panic arising would indicate a bug in the package. Which is another good reason to panic across package boundaries :-)

Alright, that makes more sense to me.

Do you know if they intend to fix the need for phoney code paths? It seems odd that a language with nice support for first class functions and closures can't acknowledge when "if ... else ..." has complete flow coverage.

> Do you know if they intend to fix the need for phoney code paths?

It's a purposeful restriction imposed by the Go compiler, but not by the Go language specification.

And I think the idea is to encourage explicitness, and force cases like these:

    if cond {
        return ...
    } else {
        return ...
    }

Into a simpler:

    if cond {
        return ...
    }
    return ...

Reasonable people can disagree over whether this is a Good Thing.

Panics serve two purposes: to bring down the program in case of an invariant violation, and to reset a state machine, like setjmp/longjmp in C. See the template package to see what I mean by the latter. The former should not be recovered from. The latter should not cross package boundaries. If they are, it's a bug because only the package author should reset that state machine. Packages should be imune to malicious input. There should be no invariant violations if you supply unexpected input. If you get a panic from a package, it means there's a buga and you shouldn't try to recover from it.

Thanks. I just wonder whether this fairly nuanced convention is or will actually be adhered to by library authors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com