As a newbie to @rustlang, it's a bit distribing to see something fundamental like error handling is about to change in a breaking way, while I like the language quite much.
-
-
Ok, I did my homework, and found that I misunderstood the compatibility story of the failure crate. It's (almost?) not breaking, but if I have to see crates migrating to failure crate introducing breaking changes, that wouldn't be so nice and in some way be disturbing to me.
-
Also seeing some crates following the old way and some the failure way of handling errors might be a little bit confusing to new comers. But I clearly see how the new way is better. Anyway thank you for enlightening me. Thanks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you mean the transition to failure crate is fully compatible w/ existing codes (esp. libs)? To my understanding, it's even slated to inclusion in std module, right?
-
BTW, I hope to say that I'm enjoying learning the language. I just need to see it in the context of my team and my future team building.
End of conversation
New 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.