diff options
| author | bors <bors@rust-lang.org> | 2014-02-20 16:56:51 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bors <bors@rust-lang.org> | 2014-02-20 16:56:51 -0800 |
| commit | 7e9bcc545631f2e0a5c248206ae25831242affdf (patch) | |
| tree | e7cb6168c26bebc970314dc837f018eb554d821b /src/rustllvm/PassWrapper.cpp | |
| parent | 6532d2fa0d173e4f815ac2144ff9860f5343cd7d (diff) | |
| parent | 7bb498bd7a09f024fe46fc58ea17fe44cbc68df0 (diff) | |
| download | rust-7e9bcc545631f2e0a5c248206ae25831242affdf.tar.gz rust-7e9bcc545631f2e0a5c248206ae25831242affdf.zip | |
auto merge of #12401 : alexcrichton/rust/if-ok-2-try, r=brson
This "bubble up an error" macro was originally named if_ok! in order to get it
landed, but after the fact it was discovered that this name is not exactly
desirable.
The name `if_ok!` isn't immediately clear that is has much to do with error
handling, and it doesn't look fantastic in all contexts (if if_ok!(...) {}). In
general, the agreed opinion about `if_ok!` is that is came in as subpar.
The name `try!` is more invocative of error handling, it's shorter by 2 letters,
and it looks fitting in almost all circumstances. One concern about the word
`try!` is that it's too invocative of exceptions, but the belief is that this
will be overcome with documentation and examples.
Close #12037
Diffstat (limited to 'src/rustllvm/PassWrapper.cpp')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
