... you have to. Should only be used when it is 'impossible' to go wrong. My rule of thumb is that should be obvious from the previous 5 ...
-
-
Replying to @nick_r_cameron
Even then shouldn't it be `match expr { Some(x) => x, None => unreachable!()`?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @nick_r_cameron
that's the same as an unwrap; the only difference is the message
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @steveklabnik @nick_r_cameron
Unwrap has never really said to me "this never fails"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @nick_r_cameron
that's why i wanted to call it assert but people Got Mad at that soooo
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
imo if there's any possibility of failure you should be using `expect`.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Gankra_ @steveklabnik and
oh my god I'm glad other people agree with me. `unwrap` doesn't exist; there is only `expect`.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @JakeGoulding @steveklabnik and
unwrap exists, it's just sugar for .expect("impossibru") ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Gankra_ @steveklabnik and
nah. Put unique text in each one so you can grep for exact line of failure without debugger.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeGoulding @steveklabnik and
eh, that's just a bad version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1744 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
bad but currently existing
. Also potentially useful to the nonprogrammer human who reads it.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @carols11cents @JakeGoulding and
It is nice to have a name to curse into the winds
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.