Add the method Option::filter<P>(self, predicate: P) -> Self to the standard library. This method makes it possible to easily throw away a Some value depending on a given predicate. The call opt.filter(p) is equivalent to opt.into_iter().filter(p).next().

assert_eq!(Some(3).filter(|_| true)), Some(3));
assert_eq!(Some(3).filter(|_| false)), None);
assert_eq!(None.filter(|_| true), None);


The Option type has plenty of methods, every single one intended to help the user write short code dealing with this ubiquitous type. If we would not care about convenience when dealing with Option, the type would not have nearly as many methods.

Just like other methods, filter() is a useful method in certain situations. While it is not nearly as important as map(), it is very handy in many situations. The feedback on the corresponding rfcs-issue clearly shows that many people encountered a situation in which filter() would have been helpful.

Consider this tiny example:

let api_key = std::env::arg("APIKEY").ok()
    .filter(|key| key.starts_with("api"));

Here is another example showing tree traversal with a queue:

let mut queue = VecDeque::new();

// We want to visit all nodes in breadth first search order, but stop
// immediately once we found a leaf node.
while let Some(node) = queue.pop_front().filter(|node| !node.is_leaf()) {

Additionally, adding filter() would make the interfaces of Option and Iterator more consistent. Both types already shared a handful of methods with identical names and functions, most importantly map(). Adding another such method would make the whole interface feel more consistent.

In the following example the programmer can easily swap nth() and filter() statements, if they decide they want to allow the -j parameter at any position.

let num_threads = std::env::args()
    .filter(|arg| arg.starts_with("-j"))
    .and_then(|arg| arg[2..].parse().ok());

filter() can be especially useful for integration into existing method- chains. Here is a slightly more complicated example which is taken from an existing, real web app’s session management. Note that each line introduces a new reason to reject the session.

// Check if there is a session-cookie
let session = cookies.get(SESSION_COOKIE_NAME)
    // Try to decode the cookie's value as hexadecimal string
    .and_then(|cookie| hex::decode(cookie.value()).ok())
    // Make sure the session id has the correct length
    .filter(|session_id| session_id.len() == SESSION_ID_LEN)
    // Try to find the session with the given ID in the database
    .and_then(|session_id| db.find_session_by_id(session_id));

All these examples would be less easy to read without filter(). There are two main ways to achieve something equivalent to filter(p):

  • opt.into_iter().filter(p).next(): notably longer and the next() feels semantically wrong.
  • opt.and_then(|v| if p(&v) { Some(v) } else { None }): notably longer and a questionable single-line if-else.

Guide-level explanation

A possible documentation of the method:

fn filter<P>(self, predicate: P) -> Self
    where P: FnOnce(&T) -> bool

Returns None if the option is None, otherwise calls predicate with the wrapped value and returns:

  • Some(t) if predicate returns true (where t is the wrapped value), and
  • None if predicate returns false.

This function works similar to Iterator::filter(). You can imagine the Option<T> being an iterator over one or zero elements. filter() lets you decide which elements to keep.


fn is_even(n: i32) -> bool {
    n % 2 == 0

assert_eq!(None.filter(is_even), None);
assert_eq!(Some(3).filter(is_even), None);
assert_eq!(Some(4).filter(is_even), Some(4));

Reference-level explanation

It is hopefully sufficiently clear how filter() is supposed to work from the explanations above. Here is one example implementation:

impl<T> Option<T> {
    pub fn filter<P>(self, predicate: P) -> Self
        where P: FnOnce(&T) -> bool
        match self {
            Some(x) => {
                if predicate(&x) {
                } else {
            None => None,


It increases the size of the standard library by a tiny bit.

Rationale and Alternatives

  • Don’t do anything.

Unresolved questions

Maybe filter() wouldn’t be used a lot.

The feature proposed in this RFC is already implemented in the option-filter crate. This crate hasn’t been used a lot (only around 1500 downloads at the time of writing this). Thus, it makes sense to ask whether people would actually use the filter() method. However, there are many other reasons for not using this crate:

  • The programmer doesn’t know about the crate

  • The programmer knows about the crate, but doesn’t want to have too many tiny dependencies in their project

  • The programmer knows about the crate, but they decided it’s too much work to use the crate.

    A simple calculation: using the crate would require around 80 new characters (option-filter = "*" + extern crate option_filter; + use option_filter::OptionFilterExt;) in at least 2, probably 3, files. On the other hand, using the .and_then() workaround shown above would only need 39 more characters than filter() and wouldn’t require opening other files.

According to the assessment of this RFC’s author, the mentioned crate is not used for reasons independently of filter()’s usefulness.

Reading the comments and looking at the feedback in this thread, it’s clear that there are at least some people openly requesting this feature. And to give a specific example: this RFC’s author wanted to use filter() a whole lot more often than he used some of the other methods of Option (like map_or_else() and ok_or_else()).