add Option::{zip,zip_with} methods under "option_zip" gate

[WaffleLapkin]

Edit: Tracking issue

---

This PR introduces 2 methods - Option::zip and Option::zip_with with
respective signatures:

• zip: (Option<T>, Option<U>) -> Option<(T, U)>
• zip_with: (Option<T>, Option<U>, (T, U) -> R) -> Option<R>
  Both are under the feature gate "option_zip".

I'm not sure about the name "zip", maybe we can find a better name for this.
(I would prefer union for example, but this is a keyword :( )

---

Recently in a russian rust begginers telegram chat a newbie asked (translated):

Are there any methods for these conversions:

1. (Option<A>, Option<B>) -> Option<(A, B)>
2. Vec<Option<T>> -> Option<Vec<T>>

?

While second (2.) is clearly vec.into_iter().collect::<Option<Vec<_>>(), the
first one isn't that clear.

I couldn't find anything similar in the core and I've come to this solution:

let tuple:(Option<A>,Option<B>) = ...;let res:Option<(A,B)> = tuple.0.and_then(|a| tuple.1.map(|b| (a, b)));

However this solution isn't "nice" (same for just match/if let), so I thought
that this functionality should be in core.

[rust-highfive]

r? @LukasKalbertodt

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Centril]

I'm not sure about the name "zip", maybe we can find a better name for this.

zip is clearly the right name as it is analogous to Iterator::zip. (We don't have Iterator::zip_with though.)

[WaffleLapkin]

Other currently possible solutions:

let tuple:(Option<A>,Option<B>) = ...;let res:Option<(A,B)> = match tuple {(Some(a),Some(b)) => Some((a, b)),
_ => None,};

#![feature(try_blocks)]// require nightlylet tuple:(Option<A>,Option<B>) = ...;let res:Option<(A,B)> = try {(tuple.0?, tuple.1?)}

(playground)

[WaffleLapkin]

We don't have Iterator::zip_with though

Hmmm, a.zip_with(b, |x, y| ...) is the same as a.zip(b).map(|(x, y)| ...)

[Centril]

I'm in favor of adding Option::zip at least by analogy to Iterator::zip (see also Option::flatten which was also accepted by analogy to Iterator::flatten). Also, I believe Option::zip to be a useful and fairly common operation to justify its addition on its own merits (as opposed to a precedent based justification).

I'm less sure about zip_with though, as it does not have similar precedent.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #70062) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[LukasKalbertodt]

Thanks a bunch for the PR!

I agree with @Centril and am also in favor of adding Option::zip. I think I'd prefer not to add Option::zip_with though. I think it's pretty niche. But I'm fine with merging it as unstable to find out if users find good uses for it.

I added a few line comments, but nothing serious. And you need to rebase.

[WaffleLapkin]

If Option::zip_with addition is so questionable, shouldn't we use a different gate for it ("option_zip_with")?

[LukasKalbertodt]

If Option::zip_with addition is so questionable, shouldn't we use a different gate for it ("option_zip_with")?

I don't have a strong preference, but I'd say you can keep it as is for now. I suspect that when we are discussing stabilizing zip, we will either also stabilize zip_with or remove it completely. I doubt we would be keeping it as unstable.

[LukasKalbertodt]

Just a tiny thing still.

[LukasKalbertodt]

Thanks!

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 121bffc has been approved by LukasKalbertodt