Second attempt to fix #23713 based on follow-up comments in #23791. #23862
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information. |
|
I still think repeating this panic behavior ends up being more confusing than it's worth. |
|
and it should be |
I disagree but I will change it according to your request.
Alright, that was before I saw your reply at #23795 (comment), fix is on the way :) |
|
r? @steveklabnik - pushed the changeset with the requested changes. Thanks! |
|
This is such a small change, it should be one commit. Mind squashing real quick? r=me after |
Done :) - Thanks @steveklabnik for the fast reply! |
|
@bors: r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 085bcfa has been approved by |
Based on the comment from @apasel422 in rust-lang#23791 (comment). Where @apasel422 proposed ``` Moves the value out of the option if it is `Some`, or panics if it is `None`. ``` I include in this PR the version ``` Moves the value `v` out of the `Option` if it is `Some(v)`, or panics if it is `None`. ``` which - is a little bit more precise about what value is actually returned - uses `Option` over just "option" in the part `out of the [Option] r? @steveklabnik, @apasel422
Based on the comment from @apasel422 in #23791 (comment).
Where @apasel422 proposed
I include in this PR the version
which
Optionover just "option" in the part `out of the [Option]r? @steveklabnik, @apasel422