libs ()
Add the method Option::filter<P>(self, predicate: P) -> Self
to the
standard library. This method makes it possible to easily throw away a Some
value depending on a given predicate. The call opt.filter(p)
is equivalent
to opt.into_iter().filter(p).next()
.
assert_eq!(Some(3).filter(|_| true)), Some(3));
assert_eq!(Some(3).filter(|_| false)), None);
assert_eq!(None.filter(|_| true), None);
The Option
type has plenty of methods, every single one intended to help the
user write short code dealing with this ubiquitous type. If we would not care
about convenience when dealing with Option
, the type would not have nearly
as many methods.
Just like other methods, filter()
is a useful method in certain
situations. While it is not nearly as important as map()
, it is very handy
in many situations. The feedback on the corresponding rfcs
-issue
clearly shows that many people encountered a situation in which filter()
would have been helpful.
Consider this tiny example:
let api_key = std::env::arg("APIKEY").ok()
.filter(|key| key.starts_with("api"));
Here is another example showing tree traversal with a queue:
let mut queue = VecDeque::new();
queue.push_back(tree.root());
// We want to visit all nodes in breadth first search order, but stop
// immediately once we found a leaf node.
while let Some(node) = queue.pop_front().filter(|node| !node.is_leaf()) {
queue.extend(node.children());
}
Additionally, adding filter()
would make the interfaces of Option
and
Iterator
more consistent. Both types already shared a handful of methods
with identical names and functions, most importantly map()
. Adding another
such method would make the whole interface feel more consistent.
In the following example the programmer can easily swap nth()
and filter()
statements, if they decide they want to allow the -j
parameter at any
position.
let num_threads = std::env::args()
.nth(1)
.filter(|arg| arg.starts_with("-j"))
.and_then(|arg| arg[2..].parse().ok());
filter()
can be especially useful for integration into existing method-
chains. Here is a slightly more complicated example which is taken from an
existing, real web app's session management. Note that each line introduces a
new reason to reject the session.
// Check if there is a session-cookie
let session = cookies.get(SESSION_COOKIE_NAME)
// Try to decode the cookie's value as hexadecimal string
.and_then(|cookie| hex::decode(cookie.value()).ok())
// Make sure the session id has the correct length
.filter(|session_id| session_id.len() == SESSION_ID_LEN)
// Try to find the session with the given ID in the database
.and_then(|session_id| db.find_session_by_id(session_id));
All these examples would be less easy to read without filter()
. There are
two main ways to achieve something equivalent to filter(p)
:
opt.into_iter().filter(p).next()
: notably longer and the next()
feels
semantically wrong.opt.and_then(|v| if p(&v) { Some(v) } else { None })
: notably longer and a
questionable single-line if-else
.A possible documentation of the method:
fn filter<P>(self, predicate: P) -> Self where P: FnOnce(&T) -> bool
Returns
None
if the option isNone
, otherwise callspredicate
with the wrapped value and returns:
Some(t)
ifpredicate
returnstrue
(wheret
is the wrapped value), andNone
ifpredicate
returnsfalse
.This function works similar to
Iterator::filter()
. You can imagine theOption<T>
being an iterator over one or zero elements.filter()
lets you decide which elements to keep.Examples
fn is_even(n: i32) -> bool { n % 2 == 0 } assert_eq!(None.filter(is_even), None); assert_eq!(Some(3).filter(is_even), None); assert_eq!(Some(4).filter(is_even), Some(4));
It is hopefully sufficiently clear how filter()
is supposed to work from the
explanations above. Here is one example implementation:
impl<T> Option<T> {
pub fn filter<P>(self, predicate: P) -> Self
where P: FnOnce(&T) -> bool
{
match self {
Some(x) => {
if predicate(&x) {
Some(x)
} else {
None
}
}
None => None,
}
}
}
It increases the size of the standard library by a tiny bit.
filter()
wouldn't be used a lot.The feature proposed in this RFC is already implemented in the
option-filter
crate. This crate hasn't been used a lot (only
around 1500 downloads at the time of writing this). Thus, it makes sense to ask whether people would actually use the filter()
method. However, there
are many other reasons for not using this crate:
The programmer doesn't know about the crate
The programmer knows about the crate, but doesn't want to have too many tiny dependencies in their project
The programmer knows about the crate, but they decided it's too much work to use the crate.
A simple calculation: using the crate would require around 80 new characters
(option-filter = "*"
+ extern crate option_filter;
+
use option_filter::OptionFilterExt;
) in at least 2, probably 3, files. On
the other hand, using the .and_then()
workaround shown above would only
need 39 more characters than filter()
and wouldn't require opening other
files.
According to the assessment of this RFC's author, the mentioned crate is not
used for reasons independently of filter()
's usefulness.
Reading the comments and looking at the feedback in this thread,
it's clear that there are at least some people openly requesting this feature.
And to give a specific example: this RFC's author wanted to use filter()
a
whole lot more often than he used some of the other methods of Option
(like
map_or_else()
and ok_or_else()
).