`if let` acts on *any* refutable pattern, not just `Option`s. The RFC that
proposed the syntax is a good place to look for the rationale of why it was
added: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/160
Steven Fackler
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Michael Giagnocavo <m...@giagnocavo.net>
wrote:
> I came across the "if let" syntax, and it's been bothering me a bit.
>
> It seems like a strange thing to elevate to a grammar-level construct.
>
> The example given is:
> if let Some(x) = foo() {
> doSomethingWith(x)
> }
>
> What's wrong with e.g.:
>
> foo().if_some!(|x| { doSomethingWith(x) })?
>
> Can macros not step in here and allow us to write code that looks like a
> closure but doesn't actually create a closure or cost any overhead?
> (In fact, is a macro even needed? Couldn't a function and it's function
> parameters be marked for inlining - wouldn't that take care of it?) This
> seems like a handy thing to have in general. I've written code in other
> languages where I want the emitted code to be as if I wrote it as a
> single function with branches, but want to express it with lambdas
> and function calls.
>
> If neither inlining nor macros can handle this, would it not be better
> to improve those features, instead of tacking on odd bits of grammar?
>
> I love more features and expressiveness but "if let" seems like
> something that shouldn't be baked into the compiler (even if Swift does
> it).
>
> I'm honestly asking this question, because the Rust team seems to have
> pretty good sense and reasoning, so I'm probably misunderstanding something
> and would like to know what I'm missing.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
