Commit 577d29c
committed
Auto merge of #49098 - matklad:find_map, r=KodrAus
Add Iterator::find_map
I'd like to propose to add `find_map` method to the `Iterator`: an occasionally useful utility, which relates to `filter_map` in the same way that `find` relates to `filter`.
`find_map` takes an `Option`-returning function, applies it to the elements of the iterator, and returns the first non-`None` result. In other words, `find_map(f) == filter_map(f).next()`.
Why do we want to add a function to the `Iterator`, which can be trivially expressed as a combination of existing ones? Observe that `find(f) == filter(f).next()`, so, by the same logic, `find` itself is unnecessary!
The more positive argument is that desugaring of `find[_map]` in terms of `filter[_map]().next()` is not super obvious, because the `filter` operation reads as if it is applies to the whole collection, although in reality we are interested only in the first element. That is, the jump from "I need a **single** result" to "let's use a function which maps **many** values to **many** values" is a non-trivial speed-bump, and causes friction when reading and writing code.
Does the need for `find_map` arise in practice? Yes!
* Anecdotally, I've more than once searched the docs for the function with `[T] -> (T -> Option<U>) -> Option<U>` signature.
* The direct cause for this PR was [this](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/5187/files/1291c50e86ed4b31db0c76de03a47a5d0074bbd7#r174934173) discussion in Cargo, which boils down to "there's some pattern that we try to express here, but current approaches looks non-pretty" (and the pattern is `filter_map`
* There are several `filter_map().next` combos in Cargo: [[1]](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/545a4a2c930916cc9c3dc1716fb7a33299e4062b/src/cargo/ops/cargo_new.rs#L585), [[2]](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/545a4a2c930916cc9c3dc1716fb7a33299e4062b/src/cargo/core/resolver/mod.rs#L1130), [[3]](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/545a4a2c930916cc9c3dc1716fb7a33299e4062b/src/cargo/ops/cargo_rustc/mod.rs#L1086).
* I've also needed similar functionality in `Kotlin` several times. There, it is expressed as `mapNotNull {}.firstOrNull`, as can be seen [here](https://github.com/intellij-rust/intellij-rust/blob/ee8bdb4e073fd07142fc6e1853ca288c57495e69/src/main/kotlin/org/rust/cargo/project/model/impl/CargoProjectImpl.kt#L154), [here](https://github.com/intellij-rust/intellij-rust/blob/ee8bdb4e073fd07142fc6e1853ca288c57495e69/src/main/kotlin/org/rust/lang/core/resolve/ImplLookup.kt#L444) [here](https://github.com/intellij-rust/intellij-rust/blob/ee8bdb4e073fd07142fc6e1853ca288c57495e69/src/main/kotlin/org/rust/ide/inspections/RsLint.kt#L38) and [here](https://github.com/intellij-rust/intellij-rust/blob/ee8bdb4e073fd07142fc6e1853ca288c57495e69/src/main/kotlin/org/rust/cargo/toolchain/RustToolchain.kt#L74) (and maybe in some other cases as well)
Note that it is definitely not among the most popular functions (it definitely is less popular than `find`), but, for example it (in case of Cargo) seems to be more popular than `rposition` (1 occurrence), `step_by` (zero occurrences) and `nth` (three occurrences as `nth(0)` which probably should be replaced with `next`).
Do we necessary need this function in `std`? Could we move it to itertools? That is possible, but observe that `filter`, `filter_map`, `find` and `find_map` together really form a complete table:
|||
|-------|---------|
| filter| find|
|filter_map|find_map|
It would be somewhat unsatisfying to have one quarter of this table live elsewhere :) Also, if `Itertools` adds an `find_map` method, it would be more difficult to move it to std due to name collision.
Hm, at this point I've searched for `filter_map` the umpteenth time, and, strangely, this time I do find this RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#1801. I guess this could be an implementation though? :)
To sum up:
Pro:
- complete the symmetry with existing method
- codify a somewhat common non-obvious pattern
Contra:
- niche use case
- we can, and do, live without it3 files changed
+60
-0
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
1745 | 1745 | | |
1746 | 1746 | | |
1747 | 1747 | | |
| 1748 | + | |
| 1749 | + | |
| 1750 | + | |
| 1751 | + | |
| 1752 | + | |
| 1753 | + | |
| 1754 | + | |
| 1755 | + | |
| 1756 | + | |
| 1757 | + | |
| 1758 | + | |
| 1759 | + | |
| 1760 | + | |
| 1761 | + | |
| 1762 | + | |
| 1763 | + | |
| 1764 | + | |
| 1765 | + | |
| 1766 | + | |
| 1767 | + | |
| 1768 | + | |
| 1769 | + | |
| 1770 | + | |
| 1771 | + | |
| 1772 | + | |
| 1773 | + | |
| 1774 | + | |
| 1775 | + | |
| 1776 | + | |
| 1777 | + | |
| 1778 | + | |
| 1779 | + | |
1748 | 1780 | | |
1749 | 1781 | | |
1750 | 1782 | | |
| |||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
1146 | 1146 | | |
1147 | 1147 | | |
1148 | 1148 | | |
| 1149 | + | |
| 1150 | + | |
| 1151 | + | |
| 1152 | + | |
| 1153 | + | |
| 1154 | + | |
| 1155 | + | |
| 1156 | + | |
| 1157 | + | |
| 1158 | + | |
| 1159 | + | |
| 1160 | + | |
| 1161 | + | |
| 1162 | + | |
| 1163 | + | |
| 1164 | + | |
| 1165 | + | |
| 1166 | + | |
| 1167 | + | |
| 1168 | + | |
| 1169 | + | |
| 1170 | + | |
| 1171 | + | |
| 1172 | + | |
| 1173 | + | |
| 1174 | + | |
| 1175 | + | |
1149 | 1176 | | |
1150 | 1177 | | |
1151 | 1178 | | |
| |||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
48 | 48 | | |
49 | 49 | | |
50 | 50 | | |
| 51 | + | |
51 | 52 | | |
52 | 53 | | |
53 | 54 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments