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?
Show HN: Stack Error – ergonomic error handling for Rust
11–14 of 14 posts
Re: Show HN: Stack Error – ergonomic error handling for Rust
#12Re: Show HN: Stack Error – ergonomic error handling for Rust
#13Earlier 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.
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
#14Earlier 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.