zig-clap VS zig-range

Zig and Rust both promote explicit error handling, however their mechanisms are different. Rust uses Result enums, while Zig uses a (global) error set type (though similar to an enum) and error propagation. Similarly, Rust uses the Option enum for optional types, while Zig uses a type modifier (?T). Both offer modern, syntactic sugar to handle those (call()? and if let Some(value) = optional {} in Rust, try call() and if (optional) |value| {} in Zig). Since Rust uses the standard library to implement error handling and options, users have the possibility to extend those systems which is quite powerful. However, I like the approach Zig takes in providing those things as language features. While their approach fits well into the C universe, I dislike that there is no pragmatic way to add more context to an error (but well, no allocations). Libraries like [clap](https://github.com/Hejsil/zig-clap) solve this by implementing a diagnostics mechanism.

It's somewhat early, but there are libraries like https://github.com/Hejsil/zig-clap that can make writing CLIs a bit easier.

Command line args: std.process or the zig-clap library

This could be in libstd, but I dont feel like its too much of an hassle (and rather a convenience): https://github.com/nektro/zig-range