#rustlang hot take: We should rename .unwrap() to .or_panic(). (And .expect() to .or_panic_with().) "Unwrap" is a terrible name for the panicking function, especially since we also have things like .unwrap_or() and .unwrap_or_default() which never panic.

Lobsters is a community-driven platform for sharing and discussing links to articles, tutorials, and projects related to technology and programming. Readers can learn about a wide range of topics, from software development and system administration to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. With user submissions, comments, and voting, Lobsters provides a platform for collaborative learning and knowledge sharing among technology enthusiasts.

Lobsters

A proposal to rename Rust's .unwrap() method to .or_panic() and .expect() to .or_panic_with() for better clarity. The argument is that 'unwrap' is misleading since related methods like .unwrap_or() and .unwrap_or_default() don't panic, making the naming inconsistent and potentially confusing for developers.

Mara: "#rustlang hot take: We should rename .unwrap() to…"

Not related at all to a recent outage that broke down half of the internet

If <code>.unwrap()</code> and <code>.expect()</code> are replaced, then:
<ol>
<li>The default behaviour should be clear.</li>
<li>The exception behaviour should be clear.</li>
<li>The name should state danger in the use of the function.</li>
</ol>
On consideration, <code>.unwrap()</code> and <code>.expect()</code> fail two out of three, giving only the default or exception behaviour; <code>.or_panic()</code> and <code>.or_panic_with()</code> fail #1. Consider replacing <code>.unwrap()</code> with <code>.unwrap_or_panic()</code>, and <code>.expect()</code> with <code>.unwrap_or_panic_with()</code>.

Naming things is the hardest of all. Even harder when the perfect name doesn’t exist, so we have to compromise, which is always disappointing.

Honestly, I find <code>unwrap</code> by itself cooler, but it was always confusing to me. It just is meaningless in that context and does not explain in the slightest, what it is actually doing. Something like <code>or_panic</code> isn’t cool, but it actually tells you, what could possibly happen. Maybe there are some even better alternatives to this proposed name.

Must be a ton of example code out there using unwrap(). Going to need a long deprecation time to maintain backwards compatibility.
I configure clippy to pimp-slap me to high heaven if it’s left in code. Only time I view it as accept is inside tests.