> IMO this kind of just moves the goalpost from "prove the program never panics" to "prove the program never hits the `None` or `Err` path" which is functionall

> IMO this kind of just moves the goalpost from "prove the program never panics" to "prove the program never hits the `None` or `Err` path" which is functionally identical in most use cases. If my goal is to show that a piece of code never panics, then it suffices to show that the None or Err path doesn't panic; I don't need to show that it's never hit.