Skip to content
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
1 contributor

Users who have contributed to this file

412 lines (263 sloc) 33.9 KB

Proposal: A built-in Go error check function, try

Author: Robert Griesemer

Last update: 2019-06-12

Discussion at


We propose a new built-in function called try, designed specifically to eliminate the boilerplate if statements typically associated with error handling in Go. No other language changes are suggested. We advocate using the existing defer statement and standard library functions to help with augmenting or wrapping of errors. This minimal approach addresses most common scenarios while adding very little complexity to the language. The try built-in is easy to explain, straightforward to implement, orthogonal to other language constructs, and fully backward-compatible. It also leaves open a path to extending the mechanism, should we wish to do so in the future.

The rest of this document is organized as follows: After a brief introduction, we provide the definition of the built-in and explain its use in practice. The discussion section reviews alternative proposals and the current design. We’ll end with conclusions and an implementation schedule followed by examples and FAQs.


At last year’s Gophercon in Denver, members of the Go Team (Russ Cox, Marcel van Lohuizen) presented some new ideas on how to reduce the tedium of manual error handling in Go (draft design). We have received a lot of feedback since then.

As Russ Cox explained in his problem overview, our goal is to make error handling more lightweight by reducing the amount of source code dedicated solely to error checking. We also want to make it more convenient to write error handling code, to raise the likelihood programmers will take the time to do it. At the same time we do want to keep error handling code explicitly visible in the program text.

The ideas discussed in the draft design centered around a new unary operator check which simplified explicit checking of an error value returned by some expression (typically a function call), a handle declaration for error handlers, and a set of rules connecting the two new language constructs.

Much of the immediate feedback we received focused on the details and complexity of handle while the idea of a check-like operator seemed more palatable. In fact, several community members picked up on the idea of a check-like operator and expanded on it. Here are some of the posts most relevant to this proposal:

  • The first written-down suggestion (known to us) to use a check built-in rather than a check operator was by PeterRK in his post Key Parts of Error Handling.

  • More recently, Markus proposed two new keywords guard and must as well as the use of defer for error wrapping in issue #31442.

  • Related, pjebs proposed a must built-in in issue #32219.

The current proposal, while different in detail, was influenced by these three issues and the general feedback received on last year’s draft design.

For completeness, we note that more error-handling related proposals can be found here. Also noteworthy, Liam Breck came up with an extensive menu of requirements to consider.

Finally, we learned after publishing this proposal that Ryan Hileman implemented try five years ago via the og rewriter tool and used it with success in real projects. See also

The try built-in


We propose to add a new function-like built-in called try with signature (pseudo-code)

func try(expr) (T1, T2, … Tn)

where expr stands for an incoming argument expression (usually a function call) producing n+1 result values of types T1, T2, ... Tn, and error for the last value. If expr evaluates to a single value (n is 0), that value must be of type error and try doesn't return a result. Calling try with an expression that does not produce a last value of type error leads to a compile-time error.

The try built-in may only be used inside a function with at least one result parameter where the last result is of type error. Calling try in a different context leads to a compile-time error.

Invoking try with a function call f() as in (pseudo-code)

x1, x2, … xn = try(f())

turns into the following (in-lined) code:

t1, … tn, te := f()  // t1, … tn, te are local (invisible) temporaries
if te != nil {
        err = te     // assign te to the error result parameter
        return       // return from enclosing function
x1, … xn = t1, … tn  // assignment only if there was no error

In other words, if the last value produced by "expr", of type error, is nil, try simply returns the first n values, with the final nil error stripped. If the last value produced by "expr" is not nil, the enclosing function’s error result variable (called err in the pseudo-code above, but it may have any other name or be unnamed) is set to that non-nil error value and the enclosing function returns. If the enclosing function declares other named result parameters, those result parameters keep whatever value they have. If the function declares other unnamed result parameters, they assume their corresponding zero values (which is the same as keeping the value they already have).

If try happens to be used in a multiple assignment as in this illustration, and a non-nil error is detected, the assignment (to the user-defined variables) is not executed and none of the variables on the left-hand side of the assignment are changed. That is, try behaves like a function call: its results are only available if try returns to the actual call site (as opposed to returning from the enclosing function). As a consequence, if the variables on the left-hand side are named result parameters, using try will lead to a different result than typical code found today. For instance, if a, b, and err are all named result parameters of the enclosing function, this code

a, b, err = f()
if err != nil {

will always set a, b, and err, independently of whether f() returned an error or not. In contrast

a, b = try(f())

will leave a and b unchanged in case of an error. While this is a subtle difference, we believe cases like these are rare. If current behavior is expected, keep the if statement.


The definition of try directly suggests its use: many if statements checking for error results today can be eliminated with try. For instance

f, err := os.Open(filename)
if err != nil {
        return …, err  // zero values for other results, if any

can be simplified to

f := try(os.Open(filename))

If the enclosing function does not return an error result, try cannot be used (but see the Discussion section). In that case, an error must be handled locally anyway (since no error is returned), and then an if statement remains the appropriate mechanism to test for the error.

More generally, it is not a goal to replace all possible testing of errors with the try function. Code that needs different semantics can and should continue to use if statements and explicit error variables.

Testing and try

In one of our earlier attempts at specifying try (see the section on Design iterations, below), try was designed to panic upon encountering an error if used inside a function without an error result. This enabled the use of try in unit tests as supported by the standard library’s testing package.

One option is for the testing package to allow test/benchmark functions of the form

func TestXxx(*testing.T) error
func BenchmarkXxx(*testing.B) error

to enable the use of try in tests. A test or benchmark function returning a non-nil error would implicitly call t.Fatal(err) or b.Fatal(err). This would be a modest library change and avoid the need for different semantics (returning or panicking) for try depending on context.

One drawback of this approach is that t.Fatal and b.Fatal would not report the line number of the actually failing call. Another drawback is that we must adjust subtests in some way as well. How to address these best is an open question; we do not propose a specific change to the testing package with this document.

See also issue #21111 which proposes that example functions may return an error result.

Handling errors

A significant aspect of the original draft design concerned language support for wrapping or otherwise augmenting an error. The draft design introduced a new keyword handle and a new error handler declaration. This new language construct was problematic because of its non-trivial semantics, especially when considering its impact on control flow. In particular, its functionality intersected with the functionality of defer in unfortunate ways, which made it a non-orthogonal new language feature.

This proposal reduces the original draft design to its essence. If error augmentation or wrapping is desired there are two approaches: Stick with the tried-and-true if statement, or, alternatively, “declare” an error handler with a defer statement:

defer func() {
        if err != nil {  // no error may have occurred - check for it
                err = …  // wrap/augment error

Here, err is the name of the error result of the enclosing function.

In practice, we envision suitable helper functions such as

func HandleErrorf(err *error, format string, args ...interface{}) {
        if *err != nil {
                *err = fmt.Errorf(format + ": %v", append(args, *err)...)

or similar; the fmt package would be a natural place for such helpers (it already provides fmt.Errorf). Using a helper function, the declaration of an error handler will be reduced to a one-liner in many cases. For instance, to augment an error returned by a "copy" function, one might write

defer fmt.HandleErrorf(&err, "copy %s %s", src, dst)

if fmt.HandleErrorf implicitly adds the error information. This reads reasonably well and has the advantage that it can be implemented without the need for new language features.

The main drawback of this approach is that the error result parameter needs to be named, possibly leading to less pretty APIs (but see the FAQs on this subject). We believe that we will get used to it once this style has established itself.

Efficiency of defer

An important consideration with using defer as error handlers is efficiency. The defer statement has a reputation of being slow. We do not want to have to choose between efficient code and good error handling. Independently, the Go runtime and compiler team has been discussing alternative implementation options and we believe that we can make typical defer uses for error handling about as efficient as existing “manual” code. We hope to make this faster defer implementation available in Go 1.14 (see also CL 171758 which is a first step in this direction).

Special cases: go try(f) and defer try(f)

The try built-in looks like a function and thus is expected to be usable wherever a function call is permitted. But if a try call is used in a go statement, things are less clear:

go try(f)

Here, f is evaluated when the go statement is executed in the current goroutine, and then its results are passed as arguments to try which is launched in a new goroutine. If f returns a non-nil error, try is expected to return from the enclosing function, but there isn’t any such (Go) function (nor a last result parameter of type error) since we are running in a separate goroutine. Therefore we suggest to disallow try as the called function in a go statement.

The situation with

defer try(f)

appears similar but here the semantics of defer mean that the execution of try would be suspended until the enclosing function is about to return. As before, the argument f is evaluated when the defer statement is executed, and f’s results are passed to the suspended try.

Only when the enclosing function is about to return does try test for an error returned by f. Without changes to the behavior of try, such an error might then overwrite another error currently being returned by the enclosing function. This is at best confusing, and at worst error-prone. Therefore we suggest to disallow try as the called function in a defer statement as well. We can always revisit this decision if sensible applications are found.

Finally, like other built-ins, the built-in try must be called; it cannot be used as a function value, as in f := try (just like f := print and f := new are also disallowed).


Design iterations

What follows is a brief discussion of earlier designs which led to the current minimal proposal. We hope that this will shed some light on the specific design choices made.

Our first iteration of this proposal was inspired by two ideas from Key Parts of Error Handling, which is to use a built-in rather than an operator, and an ordinary Go function to handle an error rather than a new error handler language construct. In contrast to that post, our error handler had the fixed function signature func(error) error to simplify matters. The error handler would be called by try in the presence of an error, just before try returned from the enclosing function. Here is an example:

handler := func(err error) error {
        return fmt.Errorf("foo failed: %v", err)  // wrap error

f := try(os.Open(filename), handler)              // handler will be called in error case

While this approach permitted the specification of efficient user-defined error handlers, it also opened a lot of questions which didn’t have obviously correct answers: What should happen if the handler is provided but is nil? Should try panic or treat it as an absent error handler? What if the handler is invoked with a non-nil error and then returns a nil result? Does this mean the error is “cancelled”? Or should the enclosing function return with a nil error? It was also not clear if permitting an optional error handler would lead programmers to ignore proper error handling altogether. It would also be easy to do proper error handling everywhere but miss a single occurrence of a try. And so forth.

The next iteration removed the ability to provide a user-defined error handler in favor of using defer for error wrapping. This seemed a better approach because it made error handlers much more visible in the code. This step eliminated all the questions around optional functions as error handlers but required that error results were named if access to them was needed (we decided that this was ok). Furthermore, in an attempt to make try useful not just inside functions with an error result, the semantics of try depended on the context: If try were used at the package-level, or if it were called inside a function without an error result, try would panic upon encountering an error. (As an aside, because of that property the built-in was called must rather than try in that proposal.) Having try (or must) behave in this context-sensitive way seemed natural and also quite useful: It would allow the elimination of many user-defined must helper functions currently used in package-level variable initialization expressions. It would also open the possibility of using try in unit tests via the testing package.

Yet, the context-sensitivity of try was considered fraught: For instance, the behavior of a function containing try calls could change silently (from possibly panicking to not panicking, and vice versa) if an error result was added or removed from the signature. This seemed too dangerous a property. The obvious solution would have been to split the functionality of try into two separate functions, must and try (very similar to what is suggested by issue #31442). But that would have required two new built-in functions, with only try directly connected to the immediate need for better error handling support.

Thus, in the current iteration, rather than introducing a second built-in, we decided to remove the dual semantics of try and consequently only permit its use inside functions that have an error result.

Properties of the proposed design

This proposal is rather minimal, and may even feel like a step back from last year’s draft design. We believe the design choices we made to arrive at try are well justified:

  • First and foremost, try has exactly the semantics of the originally proposed check operator in the absence of a handle declaration. This validates the original draft design in an important aspect.

  • Choosing a built-in function rather than an operator has several advantages. There is no need for a new keyword such as check which would have made the design not backward compatible with existing parsers. There is also no need for extending the expression syntax with the new operator. Adding a new built-in is a comparatively trivial and completely orthogonal language change.

  • Using a built-in function rather than an operator requires the use of parentheses. We must write try(f()) rather than try f(). This is the (small) price we pay for being backward compatible with existing parsers. But it also makes the design forward-compatible: If we determine down the road that having some form of explicitly provided error handler function, or any other additional parameter for that matter, is a good idea, it is trivially possible to pass that additional argument to a try call.

  • As it turns out, having to write parentheses has its advantages. In more complex expressions with multiple try calls, writing parentheses improves readability by eliminating guesswork about the precedence of operators, as the following examples illustrate:

info := try(try(os.Open(file)).Stat())    // proposed try built-in
info := try (try os.Open(file)).Stat()    // try binding looser than dot
info := try (try (os.Open(file)).Stat())  // try binding tighter than dot

The second line corresponds to a try operator that binds looser than a method call: Parentheses are required around the entire inner try expression since the result of that try is the receiver of the .Stat call (rather than the result of os.Open).

The third line corresponds to a try operator that binds tighter than a method call: Parentheses are required around the os.Open(file) call since the results of that are the arguments for the inner try (we don’t want the inner try to apply only to os, nor the outer try to apply only to the inner try’s result).

The first line is by far the least surprising and most readable as it is just using the familiar function call notation.

  • The absence of a dedicated language construct to support error wrapping may disappoint some people. However, note that this proposal does not preclude such a construct in the future. It is clearly better to wait until a really good solution presents itself than prematurely add a mechanism to the language that is not fully satisfactory.


The main difference between this design and the original draft design is the elimination of the error handler as a new language construct. The resulting simplification is huge, yet there is no significant loss of generality. The effect of an explicit error handler declaration can be achieved with a suitable defer statement which is also prominently visible at the opening of a function body.

In Go, built-ins are the language escape mechanism of choice for operations that are irregular in some way but which don’t justify special syntax. For instance, the very first versions of Go didn’t define the append built-in. Only after manually implementing append over and over again for various slice types did it become clear that dedicated language support was warranted. The repeated implementation helped clarify how exactly the built-in should look like. We believe we are in an analogous situation now with try.

It may also seem odd at first for a built-in to affect control-flow, but we should keep in mind that Go already has a couple of built-ins doing exactly that: panic and recover. The built-in type error and function try complement that pair.

In summary, try may seem unusual at first, but it is simply syntactic sugar tailor-made for one specific task, error handling with less boilerplate, and to handle that task well enough. As such it fits nicely into the philosophy of Go:

  • There is no interference with the rest of the language.
  • Because it is syntactic sugar, try is easily explained in more basic terms of the language.
  • The design does not require new syntax.
  • The design is fully backwards-compatible.

This proposal does not solve all error handling situations one might want to handle, but it addresses the most commonly used patterns well. For everything else there are if statements.


The implementation requires:

  • Adjusting the Go spec.
  • Teaching the compiler’s type-checker about the try built-in. The actual implementation is expected to be a relatively straight-forward syntax tree transformation in the compiler’s front-end. No back-end changes are expected.
  • Teaching go/types about the try built-in. This is a minor change.
  • Adjusting gccgo accordingly (again, just the front-end).
  • Testing the built-in with new tests.

As this is a backward-compatible language change, no library changes are required. However, we anticipate that support functions for error handling may be added. Their detailed design and respective implementation work is discussed elsewhere.

Robert Griesemer will do the spec and go/types changes including additional tests, and (probably) also the cmd/compile compiler changes. We aim to have all the changes ready at the start of the Go 1.14 cycle, around August 1, 2019.

Separately, Ian Lance Taylor will look into the gccgo changes, which is released according to a different schedule.

As noted in our “Go 2, here we come!” blog post, the development cycle will serve as a way to collect experience about these new features and feedback from (very) early adopters.

At the release freeze, November 1, we will revisit this proposed feature and decide whether to include it in Go 1.14.


The CopyFile example from the overview becomes

func CopyFile(src, dst string) (err error) {
        defer func() {
                if err != nil {
                        err = fmt.Errorf("copy %s %s: %v", src, dst, err)

        r := try(os.Open(src))
        defer r.Close()

        w := try(os.Create(dst))
        defer func() {
                if err != nil {
                        os.Remove(dst) // only if a “try” fails

        try(io.Copy(w, r))
        return nil

Using a helper function as discussed in the section on handling errors, the first defer in CopyFile becomes a one-liner:

defer fmt.HandleErrorf(&err, "copy %s %s", src, dst)

It is still possible to have multiple handlers, and even chaining of handlers (via the stack of defer’s), but now the control flow is defined by existing defer semantics, rather than a new, unfamiliar mechanism that needs to be learned first.

The printSum example from the draft design doesn’t require an error handler and becomes

func printSum(a, b string) error {
        x := try(strconv.Atoi(a))
        y := try(strconv.Atoi(b))
        fmt.Println("result:", x + y)
        return nil

or even simpler:

func printSum(a, b string) error {
                try(strconv.Atoi(a)) + try(strconv.Atoi(b)),
        return nil

The main function of this useful but trivial program could be split into two functions:

func localMain() error {
        hex := try(ioutil.ReadAll(os.Stdin))
        data := try(parseHexdump(string(hex)))
        return nil

func main() {
        if err := localMain(); err != nil {

Since try requires at a minimum an error argument, it may be used to check for remaining errors:

n, err := src.Read(buf)
if err == io.EOF {


This section is expected to grow as necessary.

Q: What were the main criticisms of the original draft design?

A: The draft design introduced two new keywords check and handle which made the proposal not backward-compatible. Furthermore, the semantics of handle was quite complicated and its functionality significantly overlapped with defer, making handle a non-orthogonal language feature.

Q: Why is try a built-in?

A: By making try a built-in, there is no need for a new keyword or operator in Go. Introducing a new keyword is not a backward-compatible language change because the keyword may conflict with identifiers in existing programs. Introducing a new operator requires new syntax, and the choice of a suitable operator, which we would like to avoid. Using ordinary function call syntax has also advantages as explained in the section on Properties of the proposed design. And try can not be an ordinary function, because the number and types of its results depend on its input.

Q: Why is try called try?

A: We have considered various alternatives, including check, must, and do. Even though try is a built-in and therefore does not conflict with existing identifiers, such identifiers may still shadow the built-in and thus make it inaccessible. try seems less common a user-defined identifier than check (probably because it is a keyword in some other languages) and thus it is less likely to be shadowed inadvertently. It is also shorter, and does convey its semantics fairly well. In the standard library we use the pattern of user-defined must functions to raise a panic if an error occurs in a variable initialization expression; try does not panic. Finally, both Rust and Swift use try to annotate explicitly-checked function calls as well (but see the next question). It makes sense to use the same word for the same idea.

Q: Why can’t we use ? like Rust?

A: Go has been designed with a strong emphasis on readability; we want even people unfamiliar with the language to be able to make some sense of Go code (that doesn’t imply that each name needs to be self-explanatory; we still have a language spec, after all). So far we have avoided cryptic abbreviations or symbols in the language, including unusual operators such as ?, which have ambiguous or non-obvious meanings. Generally, identifiers defined by the language are either fully spelled out (package, interface, if, append, recover, etc.), or shortened if the shortened version is unambiguous and well-understood (struct, var, func, int, len, imag, etc.). Rust introduced ? to alleviate issues with try and chaining - this is much less of an issue in Go where statements tend to be simpler and chaining (as opposed to nesting) less common. Finally, using ? would introduce a new post-fix operator into the language. This would require a new token and new syntax and with that adjustments to a multitude of packages (scanners, parsers, etc.) and tools. It would also make it much harder to make future changes. Using a built-in eliminates all these problems while keeping the design flexible.

Q: Having to name the final (error) result parameter of a function just so that defer has access to it screws up go doc output. Isn’t there a better approach?

A: We could adjust go doc to recognize the specific case where all results of a function except for the final error result have a blank (_) name, and omit the result names for that case. For instance, the signature func f() (_ A, _ B, err error) could be presented by go doc as func f() (A, B, error). Ultimately this is a matter of style, and we believe we will adapt to expecting the new style, much as we adapted to not having semicolons. That said, if we are willing to add more new mechanisms to the language, there are other ways to address this. For instance, one could define a new, suitably named, built-in variable that is an alias for the final error result parameter, perhaps only visible inside a deferred function literal. Alternatively, Jonathan Geddes proposed that calling try() with no arguments could return an *error pointing to the error result variable.

Q: Isn’t using defer for wrapping errors going to be slow?

A: Currently a defer statement is relatively expensive compared to ordinary control flow. However, we believe that it is possible to make common use cases of defer for error handling comparable in performance with the current “manual” approach. See also CL 171758 which is expected to improve the performance of defer by around 30%.

Q: Won't this design discourage adding context information to errors?

A: We think the verbosity of checking error results is a separate issue from adding context. The context a typical function should add to its errors (most commonly, information about its arguments) usually applies to multiple error checks. The plan to encourage the use of defer to add context to errors is mostly a separate concern from having shorter checks, which this proposal focuses on. The design of the exact defer helpers is part of (Go 2 error values), not this proposal.

Q: The last argument passed to try must be of type error. Why is it not sufficient for the incoming argument to be assignable to error?

A: A common novice mistake is to assign a concrete nil pointer value to a variable of type error (which is an interface) only to find that that variable is not nil. Requiring the incoming argument to be of type error prevents this bug from occurring through the use of try. (We can revisit this decision in the future if necessary. Relaxing this rule would be a backward-compatible change.)

Q: If Go had “generics”, couldn’t we implement try as a generic function?

A: Implementing try requires the ability to return from the function enclosing the try call. Absent such a “super return” statement, try cannot be implemented in Go even if there were generic functions. try also requires a variadic parameter list with parameters of different types. We do not anticipate support for such variadic generic functions.

Q: I can’t use try in my code, my error checks don’t fit the required pattern. What should I do?

A: try is not designed to address all error handling situations; it is designed to handle the most common case well, to keep the design simple and clear. If it doesn’t make sense (or it isn’t possible) to change your code such that try can be used, stick with what you have. if statements are code, too.

Q: In my function, most of the error tests require different error handling. I can use try just fine but it gets complicated or even impossible to use defer for error handling. What can I do?

A: You may be able to split your function into smaller functions of code that shares the same error handling. Also, see the previous question.

Q: How is try different from exception handling (and where is the catch)?

A: try is simply syntactic sugar (a "macro") for extracting the non-error values of an expression followed by a conditional return (if a non-nil error was found) from the enclosing function. try is always explicit; it must be literally present in the source code. Its effect on control flow is limited to the current function. There is also no mechanism to "catch" an error. After the function has returned, execution continues as usual at the call site. In summary, try is a shortcut for a conditional return. Exception handling on the other hand, which in some languages involves throw and try-catch statements, is akin to handling Go panics. An exception, which may be explicitly thrown but also implicitly raised (for instance a division-by-0 exception), terminates the currently active function (by returning from it) and then continues to unwind the activation stack by terminating the callee and so forth. An exception may be "caught" if it occurs within a try-catch statement at which point the exception is not further propagated. An exception that is not caught may cause the entire program to terminate. In Go, the equivalent of an exception is a panic. Throwing an exception is equivalent to calling panic. And catching an exception is equivalent to recovering from a panic.

You can’t perform that action at this time.