zlacker

>>ustad+(OP)
> Wait, what? Why is err reused for foo2()? Is there’s something subtle I’m not seeing? 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?

First time its assigned nil, second time its overwritten in case there's an error in the 2nd function. I dont see the authors issue? Its very explicit.

>>zwnow+2e
Author here: I'm not talking about the value. I'm talking about the lifetime of the variable.

After checking for nil, there's no reason `err` should still be in scope. That's why it's recommended to write `if err := foo(); err != nil`, because after that, one cannot even accidentally refer to `err`.

I'm giving examples where Go syntactically does not allow you to limit the lifetime of the variable. The variable, not its value.

You are describing what happens. I have no problem with what happens, but with the language.

>>thomas+sm
Why does the lifetime even matter?