ucd-generate VS untrusted

So you're saying that the 'expect()' message when a regex compilation error occurs should be a translation from a terse domain specific language to bloviating prose? :-)

What 'expect()' message would you write for this regex? https://github.com/BurntSushi/ucd-generate/blob/6d3aae3b8005...

I think 'unwrap()' there is perfectly appropriate.

> I think it'd be desirable to have a `.unwrap_with_context("Context: {}")`, and the you'd get `Context: Inner Panic Info`.

Why?

I've also embedded Unicode tables a number of times. It's very easy to do, and I do it enough that I even have a tool to do it. Having tooling and scripts to do it is important for reasons of provenance and also for when the tables need to be updated (every year or so).

ucd-generate for generating Unicode tables. It is what the regex crate uses to generate all of its tables, and it supports many properties already. It also provides a way to represent Unicode character names in a compressed data structure.

Sure... And no-panic is cool, yes.

But I stand by what I said. My perspective here is like this. "Okay, so you're complaining about panics, what's your alternative?" No, really, like what do you instead of panicking? That's what my blog explores.

So what I'm saying is, if you're going to complain about all the various panic branches, and assuming those panic branches are legitimate (i.e., hitting them would be a bug), then to me, that's just like complaining about bugs in general. At least with panics, they're a lot more visible.

Even something like 'untrusted'[1] (used in crypto libs like 'ring') uses 'unwrap()' in its implementation. What else are you going to do to remove that panicking branch? Complaining about its existence, to me, is basically like complaining that bugs exist.

[1]: https://github.com/briansmith/untrusted