-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
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
ValueOption parity with options #703
Comments
Approving as per "703 seems OK to do" from @dsyme in slack 🙂 |
Closing this out as it is committed and shipping: https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/blob/master/FSharp.Core-4.6.0/FS-1065-valueoption-parity.md |
What is the preferred way to map option to value-option? With lists there are Seq.toList and Map.ofArray etc but I can't see ValueOption.ofOption or Option.ToValueOption or anything like that. Just And different kind of tryFinds will be composed with |
I'll just note here for posterity that #703 (comment) was addressed via an addendum to the RFC for this feature in fsharp/fslang-design#779, implemented in dotnet/fsharp#17436. |
Title of Suggestion
I propose we:
ValueOption
so that it has parity with regular options.The existing way of approaching this problem in F# is to write these functions and/or type extensions yourself.
Pros and Cons
The advantages of making this adjustment to F# are:
ValueOption
feel more first-classOption
type than theValueOption
typeThe disadvantages of making this adjustment to F# are:
Extra information
Estimated cost (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL): S
Related suggestion: #612
Affidavit (please submit!)
Please tick this by placing a cross in the box:
Please tick all that apply:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: