Hacker News Reader

  > The idiomatic way to solve that in rust is to re-bind to the same variable name.

OK, that's reasonable. Is the idiomatic way to use optionals to introduce a layer of nesting? I prefer keeping functions very "flat"-looking. It sounds like Rust's optionals will give people an excuse to create labyrinthine functions where I'm constantly scrolling around to remind myself of what level of nesting I'm at and whether I'm in a loop or not, etc.

As you say, you don't need a new block to shadow a previous var, so hopefully that style catches on.

  > "oh no, this isn't exactly like c, how will anyone ever understand it"

Not very persuasive, sure, but the network effect of the C/C++ culture (including its general syntax and imperative nature) is a strength in and of itself. New languages would do well to coddle the existing C++, Java et. al. users wherever it doesn't contradict the language's central mission.

View on HN

fn get_foo() -> Option<Foo>; fn frob() -> Result<Bar, BarNotFound> { let foo = get_foo().ok_or(BarNotFound)?; let bar = convert_to_bar(foo); Some(bar) } #[derive(Debug, thiserror::Error)] #[error("Bar not found")] struct BarNotFound;