Option::zip

[retep998]

I sure would like to have the method Option::zip

fn zip<U>(self, Option<U>) -> Option<(T, U)>

Currently I have to do a.into_iter().zip(b).next() which is just a tiny bit verbose.

[huonw]

a.and_then(|x| b.map(|y| (x, y))) also works, although isn't much less verbose.

[rphmeier]

The desired behavior here is to return Some iff self and other are Some?
The signature looks like it should take self by value rather than by ref.

I think this is a pretty good idea since it's so simple, but I am not sure what the use-case is.

[oli-obk]

alternatively there could be an impl<T, U> Into<Option<(T, U)>> for (Option<T>, Option<U>). But that might be a bit too much logic for the into operation.

[KalitaAlexey]

Option::zip(a, b)

vs

(a, b).into()

I think that second approach is better, but it type of (a, b).into() is not inferrable right now.

[frewsxcv]

👎 for me. It seems like a niche use case. Also, having an operation named zip on Iterator that acts slightly different seems unfortunate.

[glaebhoerl]

FWIW using #243 extended with Option compatibility, it would also be possible to express this as try { (a?, b?) }.

[retep998]

This is now implemented, although unstable.

Closing in favor of tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#70086

[hadronized]

Interesting idea. That’s basically a specialization of applicative functors. Indeed, you use a tuple constructor, but you could do much more with an applicative functor. It’s a pity we don’t have applicative functor notation in Rust. :)

As a base of comparison, you do it this way in Haskell:

-- all these are identical
x = liftA2 (,) firstMaybe secondMaybe

x = (,) <$> firstMaybe <*> secondMaybe

x = do
  a <- firstMaybe
  b <- secondMaybe
  pure (a, b)

[WaffleLapkin]

@phaazon note that we have special-cased do (I think?...) for some types, e.g.:

let x = try { (first?, second?) };

The try{} block itself is unstable (rust-lang/rust#31436) but the question mark operator in functions is stable.