s/try!/?/g in documentation examples

[steveklabnik]

Now that ? is stable, documentation should be updated to use it instead of try!. try!'s docs should probably have a once-over, as well.

PRs to do this in any amount will be welcome, even just one examples!

[tshepang]

am curious why the downvotes

[fhartwig]

@tshepang I'm not convinced that indiscriminately replacing try! by ? is an improvement to the documentation. I like ? for avoiding nested try! expressions, but I don't see much value in changing simple expressions to use ?. Particularly in docs, I think it makes sense to favour the macro, as it is less easy to miss.

[josephpd3]

Sorry if I'm out of place in commenting as a total stranger in the Rust repo, but I'm down to help--though I can see why it's a bit on the fence for some.

I feel if the solution to this issue (either sticking to try or ? wholly or drawing the line that @fhartwig suggests) is in line with a practice to make doc examples more idiomatic. That has a sort of consistency in example I feel really builds to having more visually cohesive APIs--coming from Python myself, at least.

As I said, I would love to help if it is needed and will start on a PR, but I feel as if more discussion could only make a resolution more robust here.

[steveklabnik]

@josephpd3 #38648 is already a PR, so I think we have it covered. Reviewing that would be helpful though!

[josephpd3]

@steveklabnik gotcha! Wasn't sure if those changes to libstd was the extent of the desired changes or just a part of them. I should've peeked at that PR more. I'll go check it out and help review as I'm able.

[mgattozzi]

@steveklabnik did #38648 get them all or is this still open to get worked on?

[steveklabnik]

I think this got all of them; if you find an example using try!, please send in a PR!