can anyone think of a more idiomatic (but readable...

# announcements

[tipsy]

can anyone think of a more idiomatic (but readable) way of writing this?

for (entry in map) {
    if (myValue.startsWith(entry.key)) {
        myAction()
        return true
    }
}
return false

[christophsturm]

if (map.any { myValue.startsWith(it)} …

[karelpeeters]

return map.find { (k,v) -> myValue.startsWith(k) } ?. also { myAction() } != null

[christophsturm]

also instead of let then it does not matter what the block returns

[tipsy]

thanks, do you think it's more readable though?

[tipsy]

i would prefer karels suggestion, but there's no find on map

[tipsy]

could filter though

[tipsy]

but that also just looks tacked on 🤔

[tipsy]

i had map.any { myValue.startsWith(it.key) && doAction() } at one point, which seems very hacky, but i actually find it more readable than the also

[christophsturm]

does doAction need the found value?

[christophsturm]

imo you should use an if, to make it explicit whats happening

[christophsturm]

map.any {…&& doAction() } is just wrong

[christophsturm]

if you do it that way use forEach or map. because its just a side effect that any executes the block on every entry in the map

[tipsy]

any should return immediately after the first matching element 🤔

[tipsy]

i think i will just keep the old fashioned imperative approach in this case

[karelpeeters]

You can do map.entries.find { ... } then.

[christophsturm]

or any, but do the action outside of the block

[tipsy]

do you really think it's more readable @karelpeeters ?

[karelpeeters]

The also is maybe a stretch but the find it a lot better IMO.

[tipsy]

but you're returning a find also != null

[tipsy]

i don't know, i found it very hard to read

[tipsy]

the imperative version is verbose, but straightforward

[karelpeeters]

Well if you don't care about the actual value of course use any and an if on the result.