If this crate is really drepecate, I should specify it and mark alternatives.

[zzau13]

To avoid mistakes with programmers with little experience. It would be much more efficient to decide what to do with this crate and give alternatives. It forces you to understand something that should not be used, since currently there are much more efficient ways of doing the same work.

So, from experience, I would specify all this in the README or some visible place.

[Yamakaky]

I agree. Should have done that long ago...

[nmusatti]

While error-chain may not be the preferred way to handle errors anymore, it is still being used and I don't think a complete, official alternative is available yet. It would be great if somebody took over maintenance, if just to ensure that it keeps working with new compiler releases. Unfortunately my knowledge of Rust is too rudimentary to qualify.

[Yamakaky]

Doesn't failure qualify?

[saona-raimundo]

So, just to be sure, as I am starting to write my first library, as of today,
I should use failure and not error-chain, right?

(sorry if this question appears a lot, I still can't figure it out from the different posts)
Thanks in advance!!

[Yamakaky]

I guess yes, unless someone wants to maintain error-chain

[nmusatti]

Doesn't failure qualify?

Sorry for taking so long in answering. I took a second look and I'd say it does.

[8573]

failure having been deprecated, I don't think it would qualify anymore. I still use error-chain, but I'm attracted to snafu.

[AndyGauge]

Such is the life of rust crates. I just like error-chain because the code is in place, and I'm making sure it doesn't get deprecated.