Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Stack Error – ergonomic error handling for Rust

github.com

11–14 of 14 posts

Re: Show HN: Stack Error – ergonomic error handling for Rust

#11
post #6
post #3

I still prefer the Anyhow solution, but I like the approach here.

Isn't this strictly superior to Anyhow? What do you like more about Anyhow?

I prefer Anyhow's non-intrusiveness: "Result" is still "Result" and all I need is a "?". I agree with Stack Error's documentation that Anyhow can't help with debugging that well, but it's "good enough" in my opinion.

Re: Show HN: Stack Error – ergonomic error handling for Rust

#13
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this strictly superior to Anyhow? What do you like more about Anyhow?

I prefer Anyhow's non-intrusiveness: "Result" is still "Result" and all I need is a "?". I agree with Stack Error's documentation that Anyhow can't help with debugging that well, but it's "good enough" in my opinion.

Result in `anyhow::Result` though. It's still a different type. Or do you literally mean you like that it is still spelt the same?

And I think you can still use `?` with this if you don't want to add any context... Not 100% sure on that though.

Re: Show HN: Stack Error – ergonomic error handling for Rust

#14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer Anyhow's non-intrusiveness: "Result" is still "Result" and all I need is a "?". I agree with Stack Error's documentation that Anyhow can't help with debugging that well, but it's "good enough" in my opinion.

Result in `anyhow::Result` though. It's still a different type. Or do you literally mean you like that it is still spelt the same? And I think you can still use `?` with this if you don't want to add any context... Not 100% sure on that though.

Might as well be my limited understanding from what I can read behind the link, to be fair.
Post reply on HN