Mass rename if_ok! to try! #12401
Closed
Mass rename if_ok! to try! #12401
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This "bubble up an error" macro was originally named if_ok! in order to get it
landed, but after the fact it was discovered that this name is not exactly
desirable.
The name `if_ok!` isn't immediately clear that is has much to do with error
handling, and it doesn't look fantastic in all contexts (if if_ok!(...) {}). In
general, the agreed opinion about `if_ok!` is that is came in as subpar.
The name `try!` is more invocative of error handling, it's shorter by 2 letters,
and it looks fitting in almost all circumstances. One concern about the word
`try!` is that it's too invocative of exceptions, but the belief is that this
will be overcome with documentation and examples.
Close rust-lang#12037
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2014
This "bubble up an error" macro was originally named if_ok! in order to get it
landed, but after the fact it was discovered that this name is not exactly
desirable.
The name `if_ok!` isn't immediately clear that is has much to do with error
handling, and it doesn't look fantastic in all contexts (if if_ok!(...) {}). In
general, the agreed opinion about `if_ok!` is that is came in as subpar.
The name `try!` is more invocative of error handling, it's shorter by 2 letters,
and it looks fitting in almost all circumstances. One concern about the word
`try!` is that it's too invocative of exceptions, but the belief is that this
will be overcome with documentation and examples.
Close #12037
chris-morgan
added a commit
to chris-morgan/rust-http
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2014
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 7, 2024
…blyxyas Remove double expr lint Related to rust-lang#12379. Previously the code manually checked nested binop exprs in unary exprs, but those were caught anyway by `check_expr`. Removed that code path, the path is used in the tests. --- changelog: [`nonminimal_bool`] Remove duplicate output on nested Binops in Unary exprs.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This "bubble up an error" macro was originally named if_ok! in order to get it
landed, but after the fact it was discovered that this name is not exactly
desirable.
The name
if_ok!isn't immediately clear that is has much to do with errorhandling, and it doesn't look fantastic in all contexts (if if_ok!(...) {}). In
general, the agreed opinion about
if_ok!is that is came in as subpar.The name
try!is more invocative of error handling, it's shorter by 2 letters,and it looks fitting in almost all circumstances. One concern about the word
try!is that it's too invocative of exceptions, but the belief is that thiswill be overcome with documentation and examples.
Close #12037