Implicit operator for option type

[janno-p]

Would it be very awful if Option type had implicit operator for converting value from T => Option<T>?

public static implicit operator Option<T>(T value)
{
     return Option.Some(value);
}

It would allow to use shortcut for assigning option values. Instead of Option<bool> opt = Option.Some(true); I could use Option<bool> opt = true;

[nlkl]

Hi Janno,

I will consider this. In general I am not a big fan of implicit conversions, and it does leave some questions to what the conversion behavior should be, e.g. should it return value.Some() or maybe even value.SomeNotNull() etc.

Usually I simply use the extension methods, e.g. var opt = true.Some();, which leave very little syntactic overhead.

In my opinion, the only situation in which an implicit conversion "looks nicer", is when converting the return value (e.g. return true vs return true.Some()). However, this breaks the symmetry between .Some() and .None(), with very little benefit. As such, I do like explicitly choosing the conversion (.Some(), .None(), .SomeNotNull(), .SomeWhen(...), and so on).

Nevertheless, I will give it some thoughts. You are welcome to come up with more pros/cons.

/Nils

[janno-p]

Ok. This is all reasonable and those extension methods for conversion really help a lot. Since there are many possible interpretations for this implicit behavior (some might prefer null conversion to None, others might expect Some(null)), then it's hard to make a preference. And when one choice is made it might introduce some unexpected behaviors for end users.

Considering that, I agree, that explicit conversion is much safer way to go and this question is resolved for me.

[janno-p]

Waiting for .NET Core compatible NuGet packages to be released 😄

[nlkl]

@janno-p Just FYI, .NET Core support has just been released. Enjoy :)

[janno-p]

Great! I will.