Thanks! I wound up doing “add file to chat” and then removing the file so these options seem better =)

You’d think the beeping sound would alert you to that …

#firstworldproblems, I guess.

yeah, it seems like the message should really be something like "expectation failed: ..."

Why? I at least usually want the panic to propagate, it’s kind of the whole point, to have actors that propagate the failure out to “infected” actors. The key is recovering :)

Actually I kind of dislike “or panic with”— the convention I find most readable is when people say eg foo.lock().expect(“not poisoned”) which conveys to me WHY it is ok. I think “or panic with” would push you to the opposite framing and I find that harder to think about.

I agree “or panic” is better but my preference continues to be something like “assert_some”. I find that conveys the time when it is appropriate to use and connects it to the assert! macro (which can also panic…).

Sadly no, not really. I’d love to see what you’ve done though!

…hello prompt injection attacks :P

I used to think that but it doesn’t work with the closure treatment. The whole point in some sense is to not require distinguishing “closure creation” and “closure invocation”. So if you just say it once, we need to automatic remove the other call… and then we can do it elsewhere.

Follow-up:

smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/bl...