3 ms·
Agreed, I've never liked 'expect' either; 'or_else_panic(msg)' would be much clearer Edit: 'or_panic(msg)' would be shorter and also good.
by bluejekyll 10y ago
Agreed, I've never liked 'expect' either; 'or_else_panic(msg)' would be much clearer
Edit: 'or_panic(msg)' would be shorter and also good.
- erickt 10y agoI think that was one of the proposed variations, but we ended up picking the shorter .expect to cut down on repetition. We expected (ha) that this function would be used in these one-offs, so we wanted something more efficient.
- bluejekyll 10y agoAs an old Java hack, my allowance for repetition is high. Especially when using and IDE that basically writes the code for me ;)
- e12e 10y agootherwise(msg)?
- MaxGabriel 10y agoI would expect such a function to provide a default value
- e12e 10y agoI actually initially had it as sort of a callback: .otherwise(panic(msg)) (although I assume a rust panic! isn't really a function call). But isn't the way to get the default, simply to use unwrap()? In a simple script, failing to open a configuration file for reading is likely a show stopper, and you probably want to log/print an error (no such file, wrong permission, etc). But in, say, a paint program, you'd normally not want to panic and crash if the image file a user selected to open in a file dialog is invalid or went away between the click-to-select and the click-to-open. In such a program you'd want to handle most file errors much more defensively.