Overall really great that Go is addressing it's current biggest issues. I do think the argument for the check keyword instead of a ? operator like in Rust is quite weak. Mainly because a big advantage of the ? operator (apart from the brevity) is that it can be used in method calling chains. With the check keyword this is not possible. AFAICT the check keyword could be replaced for the ? operator in the current proposal to get this advantage, even while keeping the handle keyword.

Furthermore the following statement about rust error handling is simply not true:

> But Rust has no equivalent of handle: the convenience of the ? operator comes with the likely omission of proper handling.

That's because the ? operator does a min more than the code snippet in the draft design shows:

    if result.err != nil {
	    return result.err
    }
    use(result.value)

Instead it does the following:

    if result.err != nil {
	    return ResultErrorType.from(result.err)
    }
    use(result.value)

This means that a very common way to handle errors in Rust is to define your own Error type consumes other errors and adds context to them.