Skip to content

Documentation change: Now showing the difference between map and and_then with an example. #30971

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 2, 2016
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
31 changes: 26 additions & 5 deletions src/doc/book/error-handling.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -351,11 +351,28 @@ fn file_name(file_path: &str) -> Option<&str> {
```

You might think that we could use the `map` combinator to reduce the case
analysis, but its type doesn't quite fit. Namely, `map` takes a function that
does something only with the inner value. The result of that function is then
*always* [rewrapped with `Some`](#code-option-map). Instead, we need something
like `map`, but which allows the caller to return another `Option`. Its generic
implementation is even simpler than `map`:
analysis, but its type doesn't quite fit...

```rust,ignore
fn file_path_ext(file_path: &str) -> Option<&str> {
file_name(file_path).map(|x| extension(x)) //Compilation error
}
```

The `map` function here wraps the value returned by the `extension` function
inside an `Option<_>` and since the `extension` function itself returns an
`Option<&str>` the expression `file_name(file_path).map(|x| extension(x))`
actually returns an `Option<Option<&str>>`.

But since `file_path_ext` just returns `Option<&str>` (and not
`Option<Option<&str>>`) we get a compilation error.

The result of the function taken by map as input is *always* [rewrapped with
`Some`](#code-option-map). Instead, we need something like `map`, but which
allows the caller to return a `Option<_>` directly without wrapping it in
another `Option<_>`.

Its generic implementation is even simpler than `map`:

```rust
fn and_then<F, T, A>(option: Option<T>, f: F) -> Option<A>
Expand All @@ -377,6 +394,10 @@ fn file_path_ext(file_path: &str) -> Option<&str> {
}
```

Side note: Since `and_then` essentially works like `map` but returns an
`Option<_>` instead of an `Option<Option<_>>` it is known as `flatmap` in some
other languages.

The `Option` type has many other combinators [defined in the standard
library][5]. It is a good idea to skim this list and familiarize
yourself with what's available—they can often reduce case analysis
Expand Down