Comment by gwd

Well no, the second "if" statement is a red herring. Both of the following work:

    bar, err := foo()
    if err != nil {
      return err
    }
    if err = foo2(); err != nil {
      return err
    }

and

    bar, err := foo()
    if err != nil {
      return err
    }
    if err := foo2(); err != nil {
      return err
    }

He even says as much:

> 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?

My initial reaction was: "The first `err` is function-scope because the programmer made it function-scope; he clearly knows you can make them local to the if, so what's he on about?`

It was only when I tried to rewrite the code to make the first `err` if-scope that I realized the problem I guess he has: OK, how do you make both `err` variable if-scope while making `bar` function-scope? You'd have to do something like this:

    var bar MyType
    if lbar, err := foo(); err != nil {
      return err
    } else {
      bar = lbar
    }

Which is a lot of cruft to add just to restrict the scope of `err`.