3 ms·
Not a Rust guy, but it looks like a way to say "this option value is required and if it is not present, crash with the following error". So "expect" is a fair
by Pxtl 10y ago
Not a Rust guy, but it looks like a way to say "this option value is required and if it is not present, crash with the following error". So "expect" is a fair name, since it means a value is expected and the absence of a value is unexpected.
I could see "required" or "require" as a better name. Or even just break the "positive names" rule and go with "notOptional".
- eriknstr 10y agoLooking at it that way, I think it's possible to make "expect" more comfortable to read by how you phrase your error messages. Instead of let mut file = File::open("conf.json") .expect("could not open file"); and let config: Value = serde::from_reader(file) .expect("config has invalid json"); and let jenkins_server = config.get("jenkins_server") .expect("jenkins_server key not in config") .as_str() .expect("jenkins_server key is not a string"); One could write let mut file = File::open("conf.json") .expect("Need to be able to open file `conf.json'."); and let config: Value = serde::from_reader(file) .expect("The file `conf.json' must contain valid JSON."); and let jenkins_server = config.get("jenkins_server") .expect("The config must have a key named `jenkins_server'.") .as_str() .expect("The config value of `jenkins_server' must be a string."); Something like that.
- erickt 10y agoThat is a good point. I'm going to have to start being more positive in my expectations :)