ExitCode::exit_process() method

[coolreader18]

cc @yaahc / #93840

(eeek, hit ctrl-enter before I meant to and right after realizing the branch name was wrong. oh, well)

I feel like it makes sense to have the exit(ExitCode) function as a method or at least associated function on ExitCode, but maybe that would hurt discoverability? Probably not as much if it's at the top of the process::exit() documentation or something, but idk. Also very unsure about the name, I'd like something that communicates that you are exiting with this ExitCode, but with a method name being postfix it doesn't seem to flow. code.exit_process_with() ? .exit_process_with_self() ? Blech. Maybe it doesn't matter, since ideally just code.exit() or something would be clear simply by the name and single parameter but 🤷

Also I'd like to touch up the ExitCode docs (which I did a bit here), but that would probably be good in a separate PR, right? Since I think the beta deadline is coming up.

[rust-highfive]

r? @yaahc

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[coolreader18]

Made #95389, I'll rebase onto that.

[coolreader18]

Also was wondering about an examples section; I'm not sure what a good sample use-case would be that wouldn't just be better served by a panic, my current idea is:

use std::process::Termination;
fn unwrap_or_exit<T, E: Debug>(res: Result<T, E>) -> T {
    match res {
        Ok(v) => v,
        Err(e) => {
            eprintln!("very fatal error:");
            Err::<Infallible, _>(e).report().exit_process()
        }
    }
}

But eehhhh. Do you have any ideas, or is it fine without? process::exit doesn't have an examples section, but it does have a fn main() { process::exit(match run_app() { /* essentially Result::report */ }) } which now that I'm thinking about it should probably be removed altogether, since that was just a stand-in for real return-exitcode-from-main functionality. But I wanted to have an example of exit_process that didn't encourage recreating that when you could just return result from main, but it probably is fine without it if that exit() example gets removed.

[coolreader18]

But that's probably involved with the whole "what to do with process::exit() now" general question.

[coolreader18]

Pushed a change to the process::exit() docs as well, just as an idea of what they could/should be.

[yaahc]

Also was wondering about an examples section; I'm not sure what a good sample use-case would be that wouldn't just be better served by a panic, my current idea is:

use std::process::Termination;
fn unwrap_or_exit<T, E: Debug>(res: Result<T, E>) -> T {
    match res {
        Ok(v) => v,
        Err(e) => {
            eprintln!("very fatal error:");
            Err::<Infallible, _>(e).report().exit_process()
        }
    }
}

But eehhhh. Do you have any ideas, or is it fine without? process::exit doesn't have an examples section, but it does have a fn main() { process::exit(match run_app() { /* essentially Result::report */ }) } which now that I'm thinking about it should probably be removed altogether, since that was just a stand-in for real return-exitcode-from-main functionality. But I wanted to have an example of exit_process that didn't encourage recreating that when you could just return result from main, but it probably is fine without it if that exit() example gets removed.

I like the snippet inside of the example but yea, unwrap_or_exit is questionable. It's getting late so I didn't dig into this too deeply but my thought was to look at examples of ppl using process::exit for inspiration.

https://cs.github.com/?scopeName=All+repos&scope=&q=language%3Arust+process%3A%3Aexit

[Dylan-DPC]

@coolreader18 if you can update this with the latest changes as per the last comment we can push this forward

[yaahc]

this LGTM once the todo is fixed. After you've fixed that up and it's passing the github checks go ahead and r=me

@bors delegate+

[bors]

✌️ @coolreader18 can now approve this pull request

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit a9e29d2 with merge 9ad4bde...

[coolreader18]

ah shoot I told bors to try but I don't think that's what you meant, hopefully that's fine

[yaahc]

ah shoot I told bors to try but I don't think that's what you meant, hopefully that's fine

did you delete the comment after? I don't see a bors command anywhere. The correct command should be @bors r=yaahc

[coolreader18]

ha, yeah, I did delete it cause I thought maybe it would cancel it. anyway,
@bors r=yaahc

[bors]

📌 Commit a9e29d2 has been approved by yaahc

[coolreader18]

One day I'll stop overthinking whether I'm using bors correctly, but I guess that's not today 🙃

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: yaahc
Pushing 9ad4bde to master...

[yaahc]

One day I'll stop overthinking whether I'm using bors correctly, but I guess that's not today 🙃

I use saved replies to help me with this, lol, and even then I often end up being confused, which reminds me, I meant to add a new saved reply for bors delegate, I had to look that up before #95356 (comment)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (9ad4bde): comparison url.

Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results.

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

[yaahc]

@coolreader18 I just realized I forgot an important step of the process. This method needs a tracking issue. Can you set one up and submit another PR to update the issue field to point to the new tracking issue?