Why does Optional.map make this assignment work? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Stream.findFirst different than Optional.of?Does a finally block always get executed in Java?How does the Java 'for each' loop work?What is a serialVersionUID and why should I use it?Why does Java have transient fields?Why is subtracting these two times (in 1927) giving a strange result?Why don't Java's +=, -=, *=, /= compound assignment operators require casting?Why is char[] preferred over String for passwords?Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?Why does this code using random strings print “hello world”?Why is printing “B” dramatically slower than printing “#”?
Can you force honesty by using the Speak with Dead and Zone of Truth spells together?
What are the main differences between Stargate SG-1 cuts?
I can't produce songs
How many time has Arya actually used Needle?
Delete free apps from library
How to ternary Plot3D a function
Putting class ranking in CV, but against dept guidelines
Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?
Does silver oxide react with hydrogen sulfide?
Found this skink in my tomato plant bucket. Is he trapped? Or could he leave if he wanted?
Is CEO the "profession" with the most psychopaths?
what is the log of the PDF for a Normal Distribution?
Monty Hall Problem-Probability Paradox
A `coordinate` command ignored
Positioning dot before text in math mode
Tips to organize LaTeX presentations for a semester
Tannaka duality for semisimple groups
GDP with Intermediate Production
Is there public access to the Meteor Crater in Arizona?
Why are vacuum tubes still used in amateur radios?
How to force a browser when connecting to a specific domain to be https only using only the client machine?
If Windows 7 doesn't support WSL, then what is "Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications"?
How to ask rejected full-time candidates to apply to teach individual courses?
Can two person see the same photon?
Why does Optional.map make this assignment work?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Stream.findFirst different than Optional.of?Does a finally block always get executed in Java?How does the Java 'for each' loop work?What is a serialVersionUID and why should I use it?Why does Java have transient fields?Why is subtracting these two times (in 1927) giving a strange result?Why don't Java's +=, -=, *=, /= compound assignment operators require casting?Why is char[] preferred over String for passwords?Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?Why does this code using random strings print “hello world”?Why is printing “B” dramatically slower than printing “#”?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
Optional<ArrayList<String>> option = Optional.of(new ArrayList<>());
Optional<ArrayList<?>> doesntWork = option;
Optional<ArrayList<?>> works = option.map(list -> list);
The first attempted assignment does not compile, but the second one with the map
does. It feels like the map
shouldn't actually accomplish anything, but for some reason it turns my Optional<ArrayList<String>>
into an Optional<ArrayList<?>>
. Is there some sort of implicit cast going on?
java generics java-8 optional
add a comment |
Optional<ArrayList<String>> option = Optional.of(new ArrayList<>());
Optional<ArrayList<?>> doesntWork = option;
Optional<ArrayList<?>> works = option.map(list -> list);
The first attempted assignment does not compile, but the second one with the map
does. It feels like the map
shouldn't actually accomplish anything, but for some reason it turns my Optional<ArrayList<String>>
into an Optional<ArrayList<?>>
. Is there some sort of implicit cast going on?
java generics java-8 optional
add a comment |
Optional<ArrayList<String>> option = Optional.of(new ArrayList<>());
Optional<ArrayList<?>> doesntWork = option;
Optional<ArrayList<?>> works = option.map(list -> list);
The first attempted assignment does not compile, but the second one with the map
does. It feels like the map
shouldn't actually accomplish anything, but for some reason it turns my Optional<ArrayList<String>>
into an Optional<ArrayList<?>>
. Is there some sort of implicit cast going on?
java generics java-8 optional
Optional<ArrayList<String>> option = Optional.of(new ArrayList<>());
Optional<ArrayList<?>> doesntWork = option;
Optional<ArrayList<?>> works = option.map(list -> list);
The first attempted assignment does not compile, but the second one with the map
does. It feels like the map
shouldn't actually accomplish anything, but for some reason it turns my Optional<ArrayList<String>>
into an Optional<ArrayList<?>>
. Is there some sort of implicit cast going on?
java generics java-8 optional
java generics java-8 optional
edited Apr 4 at 8:29
Eran
293k37485565
293k37485565
asked Apr 4 at 8:12
Carl MindenCarl Minden
423418
423418
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
If you look into the code of map
and follow all the method calls, you'll see that option.map(list -> list)
ends up returning new Optional<>(option.get())
. So you can replace your last assignment with:
Optional<ArrayList<?>> works = new Optional<>(option.get());
This creates a new Optional<ArrayList<?>>
and initializes its value
instance variable (whose type is ArrayList<?>
) with the ArrayList<String>
returned by map.get()
. This is a valid assignment.
Is there some sort of implicit cast going on?
No, map
returns a new Optional
instance. It doesn't cast the original instance on which it was called.
Here's the chain of method calls:
option.map(list -> list)
returns (since option
is not empty)
Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value))
which in your case is the same as
Optional.ofNullable(value)
which returns (since the value is not null):
Optional.of(value)
which returns
new Optional<>(value)
Interesting, it just seems so strange that .map(list -> list) would do something, but yeah I suppose that makes sense.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:26
3
See also this answer. Its last code example usesmap(Function.identity())
where a direct assignment of theOptional
is not possible. In the context of this question,A
wouldArrayList<?>
andB
would beArrayList<String>
.
– Holger
Apr 4 at 10:31
add a comment |
Well the first one does not work because generics are invariant, the only way to make them covariant is to add a bounded type for example:
Optional<? extends ArrayList<String>> doesntWork = option;
that would compile.
And when you say that the map
step should no accomplish anything is well, not correct. Look at the definition of Optional::map
:
public <U> Optional<U> map(Function<? super T, ? extends U> mapper)
Objects.requireNonNull(mapper);
if (!isPresent())
return empty();
else
return Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value));
roughly speaking it does transform from Optional<T>
to Optional<U>
...
add a comment |
Your option.map
has the signature
<ArrayList<?>> Optional<ArrayList<?>> java.util.Optional.map(Function<? super ArrayList<String>, ? extends ArrayList<?>> mapper)
So this
Optional<? extends ArrayList<?>> doesntWork = option;
does compile.
Yeah, that does compile, but I am more interested in why the map fixes it, this is just a simplistic version of what I am actually trying to do. In my actual code I am overriding a method that needs to return the equivalent of the Optional<ArrayList<?>> so just changing the type of that assignment doesn't really help.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:22
add a comment |
In your latter case the return type of the Optional.map
method is implicitly determined by the type of your works
variable. That's why there is a difference.
But how is that different from the first assignment? if the signature of map is determined to by the type declaration of the assignment to return Optional<ArrayList<?>> then that means the return of the lambda would be of the type ArrayList<?> and since my lambda is (at least as far as I can tell) returning the concrete type ArrayList<String> something somewhere is casting it after the fact I guess?
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:24
Yes, exactly. The difference is that the type ofoption
is static where the return type ofOptional.map
is dynamically determined by the to be assigned variable.
– dpr
Apr 4 at 8:42
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55510951%2fwhy-does-optional-map-make-this-assignment-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If you look into the code of map
and follow all the method calls, you'll see that option.map(list -> list)
ends up returning new Optional<>(option.get())
. So you can replace your last assignment with:
Optional<ArrayList<?>> works = new Optional<>(option.get());
This creates a new Optional<ArrayList<?>>
and initializes its value
instance variable (whose type is ArrayList<?>
) with the ArrayList<String>
returned by map.get()
. This is a valid assignment.
Is there some sort of implicit cast going on?
No, map
returns a new Optional
instance. It doesn't cast the original instance on which it was called.
Here's the chain of method calls:
option.map(list -> list)
returns (since option
is not empty)
Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value))
which in your case is the same as
Optional.ofNullable(value)
which returns (since the value is not null):
Optional.of(value)
which returns
new Optional<>(value)
Interesting, it just seems so strange that .map(list -> list) would do something, but yeah I suppose that makes sense.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:26
3
See also this answer. Its last code example usesmap(Function.identity())
where a direct assignment of theOptional
is not possible. In the context of this question,A
wouldArrayList<?>
andB
would beArrayList<String>
.
– Holger
Apr 4 at 10:31
add a comment |
If you look into the code of map
and follow all the method calls, you'll see that option.map(list -> list)
ends up returning new Optional<>(option.get())
. So you can replace your last assignment with:
Optional<ArrayList<?>> works = new Optional<>(option.get());
This creates a new Optional<ArrayList<?>>
and initializes its value
instance variable (whose type is ArrayList<?>
) with the ArrayList<String>
returned by map.get()
. This is a valid assignment.
Is there some sort of implicit cast going on?
No, map
returns a new Optional
instance. It doesn't cast the original instance on which it was called.
Here's the chain of method calls:
option.map(list -> list)
returns (since option
is not empty)
Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value))
which in your case is the same as
Optional.ofNullable(value)
which returns (since the value is not null):
Optional.of(value)
which returns
new Optional<>(value)
Interesting, it just seems so strange that .map(list -> list) would do something, but yeah I suppose that makes sense.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:26
3
See also this answer. Its last code example usesmap(Function.identity())
where a direct assignment of theOptional
is not possible. In the context of this question,A
wouldArrayList<?>
andB
would beArrayList<String>
.
– Holger
Apr 4 at 10:31
add a comment |
If you look into the code of map
and follow all the method calls, you'll see that option.map(list -> list)
ends up returning new Optional<>(option.get())
. So you can replace your last assignment with:
Optional<ArrayList<?>> works = new Optional<>(option.get());
This creates a new Optional<ArrayList<?>>
and initializes its value
instance variable (whose type is ArrayList<?>
) with the ArrayList<String>
returned by map.get()
. This is a valid assignment.
Is there some sort of implicit cast going on?
No, map
returns a new Optional
instance. It doesn't cast the original instance on which it was called.
Here's the chain of method calls:
option.map(list -> list)
returns (since option
is not empty)
Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value))
which in your case is the same as
Optional.ofNullable(value)
which returns (since the value is not null):
Optional.of(value)
which returns
new Optional<>(value)
If you look into the code of map
and follow all the method calls, you'll see that option.map(list -> list)
ends up returning new Optional<>(option.get())
. So you can replace your last assignment with:
Optional<ArrayList<?>> works = new Optional<>(option.get());
This creates a new Optional<ArrayList<?>>
and initializes its value
instance variable (whose type is ArrayList<?>
) with the ArrayList<String>
returned by map.get()
. This is a valid assignment.
Is there some sort of implicit cast going on?
No, map
returns a new Optional
instance. It doesn't cast the original instance on which it was called.
Here's the chain of method calls:
option.map(list -> list)
returns (since option
is not empty)
Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value))
which in your case is the same as
Optional.ofNullable(value)
which returns (since the value is not null):
Optional.of(value)
which returns
new Optional<>(value)
edited Apr 5 at 6:25
answered Apr 4 at 8:23
EranEran
293k37485565
293k37485565
Interesting, it just seems so strange that .map(list -> list) would do something, but yeah I suppose that makes sense.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:26
3
See also this answer. Its last code example usesmap(Function.identity())
where a direct assignment of theOptional
is not possible. In the context of this question,A
wouldArrayList<?>
andB
would beArrayList<String>
.
– Holger
Apr 4 at 10:31
add a comment |
Interesting, it just seems so strange that .map(list -> list) would do something, but yeah I suppose that makes sense.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:26
3
See also this answer. Its last code example usesmap(Function.identity())
where a direct assignment of theOptional
is not possible. In the context of this question,A
wouldArrayList<?>
andB
would beArrayList<String>
.
– Holger
Apr 4 at 10:31
Interesting, it just seems so strange that .map(list -> list) would do something, but yeah I suppose that makes sense.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:26
Interesting, it just seems so strange that .map(list -> list) would do something, but yeah I suppose that makes sense.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:26
3
3
See also this answer. Its last code example uses
map(Function.identity())
where a direct assignment of the Optional
is not possible. In the context of this question, A
would ArrayList<?>
and B
would be ArrayList<String>
.– Holger
Apr 4 at 10:31
See also this answer. Its last code example uses
map(Function.identity())
where a direct assignment of the Optional
is not possible. In the context of this question, A
would ArrayList<?>
and B
would be ArrayList<String>
.– Holger
Apr 4 at 10:31
add a comment |
Well the first one does not work because generics are invariant, the only way to make them covariant is to add a bounded type for example:
Optional<? extends ArrayList<String>> doesntWork = option;
that would compile.
And when you say that the map
step should no accomplish anything is well, not correct. Look at the definition of Optional::map
:
public <U> Optional<U> map(Function<? super T, ? extends U> mapper)
Objects.requireNonNull(mapper);
if (!isPresent())
return empty();
else
return Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value));
roughly speaking it does transform from Optional<T>
to Optional<U>
...
add a comment |
Well the first one does not work because generics are invariant, the only way to make them covariant is to add a bounded type for example:
Optional<? extends ArrayList<String>> doesntWork = option;
that would compile.
And when you say that the map
step should no accomplish anything is well, not correct. Look at the definition of Optional::map
:
public <U> Optional<U> map(Function<? super T, ? extends U> mapper)
Objects.requireNonNull(mapper);
if (!isPresent())
return empty();
else
return Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value));
roughly speaking it does transform from Optional<T>
to Optional<U>
...
add a comment |
Well the first one does not work because generics are invariant, the only way to make them covariant is to add a bounded type for example:
Optional<? extends ArrayList<String>> doesntWork = option;
that would compile.
And when you say that the map
step should no accomplish anything is well, not correct. Look at the definition of Optional::map
:
public <U> Optional<U> map(Function<? super T, ? extends U> mapper)
Objects.requireNonNull(mapper);
if (!isPresent())
return empty();
else
return Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value));
roughly speaking it does transform from Optional<T>
to Optional<U>
...
Well the first one does not work because generics are invariant, the only way to make them covariant is to add a bounded type for example:
Optional<? extends ArrayList<String>> doesntWork = option;
that would compile.
And when you say that the map
step should no accomplish anything is well, not correct. Look at the definition of Optional::map
:
public <U> Optional<U> map(Function<? super T, ? extends U> mapper)
Objects.requireNonNull(mapper);
if (!isPresent())
return empty();
else
return Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value));
roughly speaking it does transform from Optional<T>
to Optional<U>
...
answered Apr 4 at 9:15
EugeneEugene
72.6k9103175
72.6k9103175
add a comment |
add a comment |
Your option.map
has the signature
<ArrayList<?>> Optional<ArrayList<?>> java.util.Optional.map(Function<? super ArrayList<String>, ? extends ArrayList<?>> mapper)
So this
Optional<? extends ArrayList<?>> doesntWork = option;
does compile.
Yeah, that does compile, but I am more interested in why the map fixes it, this is just a simplistic version of what I am actually trying to do. In my actual code I am overriding a method that needs to return the equivalent of the Optional<ArrayList<?>> so just changing the type of that assignment doesn't really help.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:22
add a comment |
Your option.map
has the signature
<ArrayList<?>> Optional<ArrayList<?>> java.util.Optional.map(Function<? super ArrayList<String>, ? extends ArrayList<?>> mapper)
So this
Optional<? extends ArrayList<?>> doesntWork = option;
does compile.
Yeah, that does compile, but I am more interested in why the map fixes it, this is just a simplistic version of what I am actually trying to do. In my actual code I am overriding a method that needs to return the equivalent of the Optional<ArrayList<?>> so just changing the type of that assignment doesn't really help.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:22
add a comment |
Your option.map
has the signature
<ArrayList<?>> Optional<ArrayList<?>> java.util.Optional.map(Function<? super ArrayList<String>, ? extends ArrayList<?>> mapper)
So this
Optional<? extends ArrayList<?>> doesntWork = option;
does compile.
Your option.map
has the signature
<ArrayList<?>> Optional<ArrayList<?>> java.util.Optional.map(Function<? super ArrayList<String>, ? extends ArrayList<?>> mapper)
So this
Optional<? extends ArrayList<?>> doesntWork = option;
does compile.
answered Apr 4 at 8:17
Lutz HornLutz Horn
66212
66212
Yeah, that does compile, but I am more interested in why the map fixes it, this is just a simplistic version of what I am actually trying to do. In my actual code I am overriding a method that needs to return the equivalent of the Optional<ArrayList<?>> so just changing the type of that assignment doesn't really help.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:22
add a comment |
Yeah, that does compile, but I am more interested in why the map fixes it, this is just a simplistic version of what I am actually trying to do. In my actual code I am overriding a method that needs to return the equivalent of the Optional<ArrayList<?>> so just changing the type of that assignment doesn't really help.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:22
Yeah, that does compile, but I am more interested in why the map fixes it, this is just a simplistic version of what I am actually trying to do. In my actual code I am overriding a method that needs to return the equivalent of the Optional<ArrayList<?>> so just changing the type of that assignment doesn't really help.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:22
Yeah, that does compile, but I am more interested in why the map fixes it, this is just a simplistic version of what I am actually trying to do. In my actual code I am overriding a method that needs to return the equivalent of the Optional<ArrayList<?>> so just changing the type of that assignment doesn't really help.
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:22
add a comment |
In your latter case the return type of the Optional.map
method is implicitly determined by the type of your works
variable. That's why there is a difference.
But how is that different from the first assignment? if the signature of map is determined to by the type declaration of the assignment to return Optional<ArrayList<?>> then that means the return of the lambda would be of the type ArrayList<?> and since my lambda is (at least as far as I can tell) returning the concrete type ArrayList<String> something somewhere is casting it after the fact I guess?
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:24
Yes, exactly. The difference is that the type ofoption
is static where the return type ofOptional.map
is dynamically determined by the to be assigned variable.
– dpr
Apr 4 at 8:42
add a comment |
In your latter case the return type of the Optional.map
method is implicitly determined by the type of your works
variable. That's why there is a difference.
But how is that different from the first assignment? if the signature of map is determined to by the type declaration of the assignment to return Optional<ArrayList<?>> then that means the return of the lambda would be of the type ArrayList<?> and since my lambda is (at least as far as I can tell) returning the concrete type ArrayList<String> something somewhere is casting it after the fact I guess?
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:24
Yes, exactly. The difference is that the type ofoption
is static where the return type ofOptional.map
is dynamically determined by the to be assigned variable.
– dpr
Apr 4 at 8:42
add a comment |
In your latter case the return type of the Optional.map
method is implicitly determined by the type of your works
variable. That's why there is a difference.
In your latter case the return type of the Optional.map
method is implicitly determined by the type of your works
variable. That's why there is a difference.
answered Apr 4 at 8:18
dprdpr
5,05811847
5,05811847
But how is that different from the first assignment? if the signature of map is determined to by the type declaration of the assignment to return Optional<ArrayList<?>> then that means the return of the lambda would be of the type ArrayList<?> and since my lambda is (at least as far as I can tell) returning the concrete type ArrayList<String> something somewhere is casting it after the fact I guess?
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:24
Yes, exactly. The difference is that the type ofoption
is static where the return type ofOptional.map
is dynamically determined by the to be assigned variable.
– dpr
Apr 4 at 8:42
add a comment |
But how is that different from the first assignment? if the signature of map is determined to by the type declaration of the assignment to return Optional<ArrayList<?>> then that means the return of the lambda would be of the type ArrayList<?> and since my lambda is (at least as far as I can tell) returning the concrete type ArrayList<String> something somewhere is casting it after the fact I guess?
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:24
Yes, exactly. The difference is that the type ofoption
is static where the return type ofOptional.map
is dynamically determined by the to be assigned variable.
– dpr
Apr 4 at 8:42
But how is that different from the first assignment? if the signature of map is determined to by the type declaration of the assignment to return Optional<ArrayList<?>> then that means the return of the lambda would be of the type ArrayList<?> and since my lambda is (at least as far as I can tell) returning the concrete type ArrayList<String> something somewhere is casting it after the fact I guess?
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:24
But how is that different from the first assignment? if the signature of map is determined to by the type declaration of the assignment to return Optional<ArrayList<?>> then that means the return of the lambda would be of the type ArrayList<?> and since my lambda is (at least as far as I can tell) returning the concrete type ArrayList<String> something somewhere is casting it after the fact I guess?
– Carl Minden
Apr 4 at 8:24
Yes, exactly. The difference is that the type of
option
is static where the return type of Optional.map
is dynamically determined by the to be assigned variable.– dpr
Apr 4 at 8:42
Yes, exactly. The difference is that the type of
option
is static where the return type of Optional.map
is dynamically determined by the to be assigned variable.– dpr
Apr 4 at 8:42
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55510951%2fwhy-does-optional-map-make-this-assignment-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown