Hacker News Reader

Comment by mathstuf | Hacker News Reader

Any reason why this wasn't preferred?

    let foo_result = foo()
        .map_err(Bar::Fail)?;

View on HN

Bar::Fail is not wrapped in a Result type, so you can't use '?' with it (on stable at least).

You can write it like this:

  let foo_result = match foo() {
    Ok(v) => v,
    Err(e) => return Bar::Fail(e)
  };

The result type is the return from Foo -- Bar::Fail does not need to wrap Result. Foo is Result<T, E> and map_err() would convert it to Result<T, Bar::Fail>. I think GP's `map_err()?` is the most straightforward way of writing this idea (and it's generally speaking how I would suggest writing Rust code).

GP's code will return Result<_, Bar>, the original code we are trying to fix just returns Bar.

If you are writing code to handle Results, it’s going to be a lot less painful to just return Result.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com