Well, you can map over options/maybes. For-loop style iteration over an option does seem a little strange IMO, first, because syntactically it looks like overkill, and second (and more importantly), because map evals to a value, while `for` does not.

But I suppose in C++, given the centrality of looping constructs, this is what you would do to accommodate option.

You're comparing apples to oranges. In pure functional languages, Option is a fundamental type. It's a concept introduced very early on when learning FP. Historically it had the same behavior and definition.

Trying to gaslight ppl to question their reasonable reaction of std::optional transitioning from its previous behavior to an Option like behavior when no other type in C++ behaves as such is disingenuous.

Of course it is weird in the C++ context, but is it a step in the right direction? absolutely!