est31

Now even I think that it should be removed. its far too buggy.

Some libraries: - http://mikmod.sourceforge.net/ - http://lib.openmpt.org/libopenmpt (has no debian package, we would have to nudge the minetest packager) - http://modplug-xmms.sourceforge.net/ (has debian package. A libopenmt developer [criticised this library](https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/13055))

Can this be reopened? I've had users ask me whether I could do this: https://github.com/est31/rcgen/issues/47

> port `try!` to use `?` Can't `?` be ported to use `try!` instead? This would allow for the use case where you want to get a `Result` return path,...

Without wanting to speculate, I think that it could work, albeit with some issues. Consider the usual case where one has code returning some `Result` value. Now we would need...

What about support for providing stack traces? Is that planned?

That RFC is different from the PSK support that is part of RFC8446 directly. See the section in RFC8773: > The TLS 1.3 [[RFC8446](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446)] handshake protocol provides two mutually exclusive...

> Any time you are thinking of using "self-signed certificate" or "end-entity certificate" and TrustAnchor together, you are almost surely on the verge of something that is very dangerous. webpki...

The [column!()](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/macro.column.html) macro as well as [std::panic::Location::column](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/panic/struct.Location.html#method.column) are returning 1-based columns while the span available from the proc-macro crate [is 0-based](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/proc_macro/struct.LineColumn.html#structfield.column) according to its docs. Is this inconsistency intended?

This thread has more discussion about 1-based columns: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/46762#issuecomment-352474639