Apologies for the verbose response, but I just don't see how to avoid it because people constantly get tangled in knots in this sort of discussion.
I think this is continuing to miss the forest for the trees. The original code snippet could also just use `unsafe` to elide the panicking branch and it would still be just as correct while satisfying the requirement that there are no panicking branches.
But what's actually happened is that you've traded "panic when a bug occurs" with "undefined behavior when a bug occurs." Both things are valid choices depending on the circumstances, but the latter is not a realistic escape hatch out of the discussion at hand: whether one should completely elide all panicking branches.
The comment that kicked off this sub-thread:
> IMO (systems programming background), the litmus test for panic! vs. Result doesn’t exist. Don’t panic.
The "Don't panic" advice is correct but ambiguous on its own. If it's referring to the behavior of a program, then yes, absolutely, don't panic. Or as I like say, "if a program panics, it should be considered a bug." But if it's referring the source code, as in, there should be no panicking branches, then that is absolutely wrong. Neither the standard library nor any popular Rust library follows that practice. And they shouldn't.
I interpreted "Don't panic" as the latter meaning because of the claim that "panic! vs Result doesn't exist." That only makes sense in the latter interpretation. In the former interpretation, one does need to contend with a "panic vs Result" choice, as it's often a balance between convenience and how it's usually used. For example, indexing a slice with a `usize` panics.
So either the former interpretation was meant and the poster is confused (or just misspoke), or the latter interpretation was meant and is divorced from reality.
I'll post a link to my blog on this topic yet again, because I'm pretty sure it will clarify the situation and my position: https://blog.burntsushi.net/unwrap
I think this is continuing to miss the forest for the trees. The original code snippet could also just use `unsafe` to elide the panicking branch and it would still be just as correct while satisfying the requirement that there are no panicking branches.
But what's actually happened is that you've traded "panic when a bug occurs" with "undefined behavior when a bug occurs." Both things are valid choices depending on the circumstances, but the latter is not a realistic escape hatch out of the discussion at hand: whether one should completely elide all panicking branches.
The comment that kicked off this sub-thread:
> IMO (systems programming background), the litmus test for panic! vs. Result doesn’t exist. Don’t panic.
The "Don't panic" advice is correct but ambiguous on its own. If it's referring to the behavior of a program, then yes, absolutely, don't panic. Or as I like say, "if a program panics, it should be considered a bug." But if it's referring the source code, as in, there should be no panicking branches, then that is absolutely wrong. Neither the standard library nor any popular Rust library follows that practice. And they shouldn't.
I interpreted "Don't panic" as the latter meaning because of the claim that "panic! vs Result doesn't exist." That only makes sense in the latter interpretation. In the former interpretation, one does need to contend with a "panic vs Result" choice, as it's often a balance between convenience and how it's usually used. For example, indexing a slice with a `usize` panics.
So either the former interpretation was meant and the poster is confused (or just misspoke), or the latter interpretation was meant and is divorced from reality.
I'll post a link to my blog on this topic yet again, because I'm pretty sure it will clarify the situation and my position: https://blog.burntsushi.net/unwrap