Add Option::filter() according to RFC 2124
#44996
Conversation
LukasKalbertodt
force-pushed
the
add-option-filter
branch
from
ac912e4 to
88c94e7
Compare
aidanhs
added
the
S-waiting-on-author
|
Thanks for the PR @LukasKalbertodt! I've set @sfackler as the reviewer for the PR but have set it as "with author" for now until the RFC gets merged - assuming it does, we can than get this reviewed and merged. |
|
In fact, I think I'll close this PR for now as I don't see the RFC being merged in the next week - once it is, please ping me and I'll reopen and we can get your PR reviewed :) (this is just so PR triagers aren't constantly visiting this PR and checking to see where the RFC is up to) |
|
@aidanhs Sure! Sorry for opening this PR too soon, I expected the RFC to be merged earlier :) |
|
@aidanhs The RFC has been merged and I inserted the correct tracking issue id into the code. This PR can be opened again :) |
LukasKalbertodt
changed the title
Option::filter() according to RFC 2124Option::filter() according to RFC 2124
|
😕 It may be easier to just submit a new PR (isaacs/github#361). |
|
Oopsie. Okay dokey! |
…r=dtolnay Add `Option::filter()` according to RFC 2124 (*old PR: rust-lang#44996) This is the implementation of [RFC "Add `Option::filter` to the standard library"](rust-lang/rfcs#2124). Tracking issue: rust-lang#45860 **Questions for code reviewers:** - Is the documentation sufficiently long? - Is the documentation easy enough to understand? - Is the position of the new method (after `and_then()`) a good one?
This is the implementation of the not yet accepted RFC "Add
Option::filterto the standard library". However, the feedback on the RFC is very good so far and I think it's rather unlikely the RFC will be rejected.TODO:
option_filter) #45860) and add issue number to "unstable" attributeQuestions for code reviewers:
and_then()) a good one?