remove unnecessary ok on dotenv result

[xiaoas]

fixes #37

Hope I've done this correctly🥲

[sonro]

Thank you for your PR!

We could do with both the .ok() and .unwrap()/? versions being present in the readme. It is often the first example a user will see, and most would not want their program to panic/throw if there is no .env file. It is supposed to be an optional way of passing environment variables into a program.

Instead of changing the existing example, we should have both, and a decription of which to use.

[allan2]

I wrote my comments out last night but forgot to submit. @sonro I didn't mean to tag you and run!

There's also a discussion #39 related to this PR. Thanks @xiaoas for inspiring it.

[sonro]

Thank you for the changes

[github-actions]

[LeoniePhiline]

@sonro Wouldn't it be best to make examples use proper error handling instead?

This will help beginners find into best practices asap.

[sonro]

@LeoniePhiline

Wouldn't it be best to make examples use proper error handling instead?

I completely agree. This PR along with previous issues regarding this topic has led to a discussion about an API change (#39). Once that has been resolved more documentation (including examples) will surely follow.