Comparison with False - something I don't understand

[Tim Harig]

On 2010-12-04, alex23 <wuwei23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:12 am, Tim Harig <user... at ilthio.net> wrote:
>> Actually, I thought that debate was resolved years ago.  I cannot think of
>> a single recently developed programming language that does not provide
>> exception handling mechanisms because they have been proven more reliable.
>
> Google's Go lacks exceptions and I believe that was a deliberate
> design choice.

1. The debate that I was referring to was between simple function checking
	vs. everything else.  I didn't mean to automatically proclude any
	newer methodologies of which I might not even be aware.

2.  I would consider the defer/panic/recovery mechanism functionally similar 
	to exceptions in most ways.  It allows the error handling
	code to be placed at a higher level and panics tranverse the stack
	until they are handled by a recovery.  This is basically equivilent
	to how exceptions work using different names.  The change is basically the defer
	function which solves the problem of any cleanup work that the
	function needs to do before the panic is raised.  I like it, its
	nice.  It formalizes the pattern of cleaning up within an exception
	block and re-raising the exception.

	I do have to wonder what patterns will emerge in the object given
	to panic().  Since it takes anything, and since Go doesn't have an
	object hierarchy, much less an exception hierarchy, the panic value
	raised may or may not contain the kind of detailed information that
	can be obtained about the error that we are able to get from the
	Exception objects in Python.