Add section on common message styles for Result::expect
Based on a question from https://github.com/rust-lang/project-error-handling/issues/50#issuecomment-1092339937
~~One thing I haven't decided on yet, should I duplicate this section on `Option::expect`, link to this section, or move it somewhere else and link to that location from both docs?~~: I ended up moving the section to `std::error` and referencing it from both `Result::expect` and `Option::expect`'s docs.
I think this section, when combined with the similar update I made on [`std::panic!`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/macro.panic.html#when-to-use-panic-vs-result) implies that we should possibly more aggressively encourage and support the "expect as precondition" style described in this section. The consensus among the libs team seems to be that panic should be used for bugs, not expected potential failure modes. The "expect as error message" style seems to align better with the panic for unrecoverable errors style where they're seen as normal errors where the only difference is a desire to kill the current execution unit (aka erlang style error handling). I'm wondering if we should be providing a panic hook similar to `human-panic` or more strongly recommending the "expect as precondition" style of expect message.
Using an obviously-placeholder syntax. An RFC would still be needed before this could have any chance at stabilization, and it might be removed at any point.
But I'd really like to have it in nightly at least to ensure it works well with try_trait_v2, especially as we refactor the traits.
Rename is_{some,ok,err}_with to is_{some,ok,err}_and.
This renames `is_{some,ok,err}_with` to `is_{some,ok,err}_and`. This was discussed on the [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/93050).
This updates the standard library's documentation to use the new syntax. The
documentation is worthwhile to update as it should be more idiomatic
(particularly for features like this, which are nice for users to get acquainted
with). The general codebase is likely more hassle than benefit to update: it'll
hurt git blame, and generally updates can be done by folks updating the code if
(and when) that makes things more readable with the new format.
A few places in the compiler and library code are updated (mostly just due to
already having been done when this commit was first authored).
Add Result::{ok, err, and, or, unwrap_or} as const
Already opened tracking issue #92384.
I don't think that this should actually cause any issues as long as the constness is unstable, but we may want to double-check that this doesn't get interpreted as a weird `Drop` bound even for non-const usages.
Just a refactor (and rename) for now, so it's not `Result`-specific.
This could be used for a future `Iterator::try_collect`, or similar, but anything like that is left for a future PR.
Readd track_caller to Result::from_residual
This is a followup on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87401 in and an attempt to move the issue towards resolution.
As part of the overhaul of the Try trait we removed the ability for errors to grab location information during propagation via `?` with the builtin `std::result::Result`. The previously linked issue has a fair bit of discussion into the reasons for and against the usage of `#[track_caller]` on the `FromResidual` impl on `Result` that I will do my best to summarize.
---
### For
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87401#issuecomment-915053533: Difficulties with using non `std::result::Result` like types
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87401#issuecomment-978355102: Inconsistency with functionality provided for recoverable (Result) and non-recoverable errors (panic), where panic provides a location and Result does not, pushing some users towards using panic
### Against
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84277#issuecomment-885322833: concern that this will bloat callers that never use this data
---
Personally, I want to quantify the performance / bloat impact of re-adding this attribute, and fully evaluate the pros and cons before deciding if I need to switch `eyre` to have a custom `Result` type, which would also mean I need `try_trait_v2` to be stabilized, cc `@scottmcm.` If the performance impact is minor enough in the general case I think I would prefer that the default `Result` type has the ability to track location information for consistency with `panic` error reporting, and leave it to applications that need particularly high performance to handle the micro optimizations of introducing their own efficient custom Result type or matching manually.
Alternatively, I wonder if the performance penalty on code that doesn't use the location information on `FromResidual` could be mitigated via new optimizations.
