Not exactly. It is more like if a library is gonna crash the program (the deep dependencies used in that library triggered a panic on its own), just to let the programmer know it before happens; thus allowing the programmer to try alternatives for to avoid it, and if it's inexorable after those tries, for procedures for a controlled shutdown with proper protocols, actions, and so on.

I mean, as the crash is not exposed in the public API, given the things, I think it might not matter if this signal is exposed or not.

How do you let the programmer know? Through the public API...

Otherwise you have to catch panics via unwinding.

By the public API then, may be a language generalized Err(panicked) through Result, nothing more as it is about the request cannot be accomplished at all (target/debug would tell), or may be someone thought on simpler tip through compiler or other thing. I humbly do not know what approach would be simpler, efficient or less intrusive, I would embrace anything to avoid sudden crash.

The juxtaposition between this comment where you seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and the certainty with which your initial comment was expressed is really quite something.

My initial comment was: So much correctness in the Rust language just for to promote to all the community to crash the program from libraries without handling the error is something I can not understand.

Empathy tone changed in such last message which you are ridiculing, it is the point within all my comments, the behavior of a --release.

I should not have had dialogue as the things are not going to change. What I take with me is to think on alternative for panic/unwrap is something only come from ignorance, the best is to crash a program without let the programmer nor the final user to blink; to think in a different behavior in Rust is ridiculous. This is what is really quite something.