It is well supported in all browsers and operating systems. At least VS Code and IntelliJ support it, and even some terminals.
I don’t understand the “serde2” issue. Isn’t “someusername/serde” strictly worse than “serde2”?
GitHub being the only auth provider is something the maintainers wanted to fix, but didn’t have enough bandwidth to implement. I think they would welcome contributions!
If all you do in the Err(e) => ...
match arm is returning the error, then you absolutely should use the ?
operator instead.
If the match arm also converts the error type into another error type, implement the From
trait for the conversion, then you can use ?
as well.
If you want to add more information to the error, you can use .map_err(...)?
. Or, if you’re using the anyhow
crate, .with_context(...)?
.
I can’t remember ever needing more than two question marks (??
), and even that is very rare in my experience.
Apparently the maintainer trusted the first-time contributor enough to propose tackling another bug.
There is no trust needed when asking someone to fix a bug. It’s not like the maintainer would lose anything if the contributor failed to fix the bug.
Besides, I think it is natural to want recognition when you do a lot of work for free. Many other people wouldn’t do this unpaid work at all; recognizing their contribution is the bare minimum of good manners. Even in a company where employees are paid for their work, it is customary to give credit to co-workers who have helped you. Most people don’t like to work in places where they don’t feel appreciated, and that is also true in Open-Source.
It’s not possible to instantiate or assign, which is more like a never type than a unit
Actually, this is because void
is not a type, it is just a keyword, a placeholder used instead of the return type when a function doesn’t return anything.
If it were a bottom type, that would mean that a method returning void
must diverge, which is simply not true.
Also, if it were a bottom type, it would be possible to write an “unreachable” method
void unreachable(void bottom) {
return bottom;
}
Even though it couldn’t be called, it should be possible to define it, if void
was a bottom type. But it is not, because void
isn’t a bottom type, it’s no type at all.
No it’s not, it is 100% a unit type (except it’s not really a type, since you can only use it as return type and nowhere else)
Thanks!
Piping in a shell script should be doable, it just hasn’t been requested yet.