code: Replace Option<Value> with bespoke type to better express intent
#114
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
romac
force-pushed
the
romac/value-or-nil
branch
from
0c0d786 to
e13ddc3
Compare
romac
changed the title
Option<Value> with NilOrVal<Value> to better express intentOption<Value> with bespoke type to better express intent
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Using
Noneto denote nil is sometimes confusing as it may be interpreted as the absence of result or as short-circuit rather than an explicit nil value.Hence, this PR introduces the
NilOrVal<Value>enum, isomorphic toOption<Value>to better express the intent.Where we were previously using
Noneto denote nil, this is now expressed asNilOrVal::Nil, and where were usingSome(Value)to denote the presence of a value to decide or vote on, this is now expressed asNilOrVal::Val(Value).