Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SkiFire13 705 days ago
Which is arguably even worse, because now if it fails you don't even see it! You wanted to make the code more robust and ultimately made it less.
1 comments

Yes, I'm not saying `unreachable!()` isn't a `panic!()`.

And I am also not arguing for the use of `unreachable_unchecked!()`.

I am only arguing that in all the other cases mentioned, you can simply avoid panics.

The problem however is that a generic "panic" lint will trigger on these as well. Which will be pretty annoying. Combined with the fact that such a lint will have to see through functions in other crates (otherwise `unwrap` and indexing won't be linted) will make this pretty annoying. I hope maintainers won't be nagged to remove lecit panics like these just because the lint annoys some dependents...