Use Option::filter instead of open-coding it

[LingMan]

No description provided.

[rust-highfive]

r? @estebank

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[pickfire]

Looks good to me. @LingMan This is the way to go if you want to do these style changes, I think keeping it small have a higher chance of being accepted.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #77135) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels:

@rustbot modify labels: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-author

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I am not a maintainer of this particular code section, but the new version looks significantly less readable to me.

cc @matklad @petrochenkov as well

[matklad]

Yeah, I also don't think this is an improvement. Although the high-level semantic here is indeed that of Option::filter, closures do make code noisier and harder to understand. I don't see any clear cut ways to improve the code (? would make the shape awkward, and replacing unwrap_or_else with simpler unwrap_or would survive only until someone runs clippy again), so I think it makes sense to close the PR.

Thanks for the PR anyway, @LingMan, it's useful to see two versions side by side to better understand which one is better!

[LingMan]

Huh, interesting. I find it more readable because there's less brain power spent on deciphering the high-level semantic and more focus on what's relevant.
Your code, your choice. Thanks for considering it!