Author of `wherr` here. Thanks for sharing a really nice alternative solution to the problem, I like it! It seems to be a bit faster: running 2 tests test test

Author of `wherr` here. Thanks for sharing a really nice alternative solution to the problem, I like it! It seems to be a bit faster: running 2 tests test tests::benchmark_location_caller ... bench: 15 ns/iter (+/- 0) test tests::benchmark_wherr ... bench: 18 ns/iter (+/- 1) I also like that it's more explicit; the actual error type is then spelled out, instead of being magically wrapped by the macro, that's nice! Sounds like a better approach overall, but I'm curious to understand more about the disadvantage you mention, the problem with using `#[track_caller]`, that then masquerades the actually error line number. For my own code, I can of course control that and just ensure I don't make use of `#[track_caller]` anywhere in my code. But if other crates would be making use of `#[track_caller]`, that would prevent getting the correct error line. Can anything be said about how common it is to use `#[track_caller]` in crates? If very uncommon, then I can live with it. But it would be annoying if it works sometimes and other times not.