Rename bool::ok_or[_else] to bool::then_ok_or[_else] to avoid confusion with Option::ok_or[_else]

[LimpSquid]

Relevant tracking issue: #142748 (comment)

[rustbot]

r? @jhpratt

rustbot has assigned @jhpratt.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[jhpratt]

r=me with anyone from @rust-lang/libs-api concurring design-wise (as this alters an accepted ACP).

[traviscross]

I'd rather not do this for the reasons described in #142748 (comment).

[joshtriplett]

We discussed this in today's @rust-lang/libs-api meeting.

We discussed several aspects of these methods, but we pretty resoundingly didn't have appetite for renaming them. We don't want to create precedent here, since any method on bool could arguably start with then for similar reasons.

@rfcbot close

[joshtriplett]

@rfcbot close

[rfcbot]

Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to close this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @Amanieu
• @BurntSushi
• @dtolnay
• @joshtriplett
• @m-ou-se

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

[rfcbot]

The final comment period, with a disposition to close, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.