`write_byte_record` and `write_field` does not mix well and this is not properly documented.

[vi]

`write_byte_record` and `write_field` does not mix well and this is not properly documented.

[BurntSushi]

Thanks for the well written issue!

Or the program behaves just like as if it were write_record instead.

This is probably what should happen. I don't have the context paged into cache to know how tricky (if at all) this is. Hopefully not tricky at all.

Example code from write_field's documentation with wtr.write_record(None::<&[u8]>)?; (why there is no dedicated method to avoid those turbofishes?);

Because I perceive this to be a niche/weird case and I'm not sure it warrants another method in the public API.