If I need to know which statement failed then I find `with` to be trying to fit square peg into round hole. You either need to know (and then you probably should use `case` or separate function) or you do not care, and then you do not need hops like that.
Hmm idk about this one. I really feel that we should be able to do both:
1. focus on the success path
2. being able to handle the specifics error
One would say that the saga pattern is here for that but feels like a bit much to implement for that (sending a follow up skeet)
I do not know how that does conflict with what I said. If you use `anyhow` then you do not care about reported errors anyway, which mean that plain `with` is what you seek.