Talk:cpp/utility/optional/and then
From cppreference.com
Why do these methods require that the return type is drived from std::optional? It would be far more convenient if the method itself constructed the optional and more in keeping with convenient syntax in other languages such as C#: a?.foo()?.bar()?.baz(). It also requires a default constructible result type, which is another needles(?) restriction.
Never mind - The method I was expecting is called "transform".
