Infallible getrandom API about getrandom HOT 4 CLOSED

Why not simply use getrandom(buf).unwrap()? It's 2 characters shorter than getrandom_infallible(buf). Alternatively soon you could use OsRng.fill_bytes(buf).

I guess we could include a wrapper function (with a better name), but personally I prefer the current simple API which does not hide possibility of errors. Though if @dhardy would prefer to add such function I will not be against doing it.

from getrandom.

I used expect() instead of unwrap(), and eyah, it works great!

I didn't really have a use case for actually handling the error in any of my code, so I figured I should file this. If there's no interest that's ok by me!

from getrandom.

I believe the only reason not to use unwrap if you don't plan on returning an error value is because it merely uses a generic error message. But getting a backtrace from a panic is quite easy.

For better formatting you could do something like .unwrap_or_else(|e| panic!("{}", e)). We could add a method for this, but I don't see very much value?

from getrandom.

I think we can close this issue?

from getrandom.