experiment defining runtime Condition in terms of option functions
#1498
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Takes advantage of `?` on `Option` to allow simpler `Condition` impls. Not a huge change internally, but it is a breaking change. Signed-off-by: clux <[email protected]>
clux
added
the
question
clux
changed the title
Condition in terms of option functions
| } | ||
| } | ||
| false | ||
| let cond = obj |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks much better and simpler in terms of readability to me.
| self.matches_object_option(obj).unwrap_or_default() | ||
| } | ||
| /// Condition function giving an option wrapped answer | ||
| fn matches_object_option(&self, _obj: Option<&K>) -> Option<bool>; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This method can also be named just matches?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Unimportant nerd-snipe xperiment that takes advantage of
?onOptionto allow simplerConditionimpls (sometimes...).Small, but breaking change due to not finding a way to have overlapping
Conditionimpls forFn. Maybe it's possible with an indirection trait. LMK if interested and have ideas. Not even sure if this is super useful due to the amount ofas_ref()calls you need. Maybe it could be useful if we could define these fns in both ways. i don't know.The good case is nice tho: