-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move Range*::contains to a single default impl on RangeBounds #49130
Merged
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Re-mentioning the
T: PartialOrd<U>
vsU: PartialOrd<T>
vs both discussion, since I'm not sure it was fully resolved.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we agreed on not
U: PartialOrd<T>
, but the other two are still options.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm still in favour of
where T: PartialOrd<U>, U: PartialOrd<T>
for compatibility. For anyone implementing these traits correctly, there'll be no inconvenience, but it makes it easier in the future to modify in a way that's backwards-compatible.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's definitely the advantage there of making sure that everything is implemented correctly, however it does raise the question of consistency. Do we think this is a small enough issue that it's more worthwhile to be consistent with the rest of std? Are there plans to address this issue in a more broad way that would apply everywhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The rest of std isn't consistent. For example,
Vec::contains
isn't even generic over the search type. The issue is that, in the past, the methods weren't defined generally enough, and when people come back to try to fix that, there are type inference issues.The general practice now is "make new methods behave correctly" and we'll try to fix the old ones when it's possible (e.g. with #27336 and #46946). These aren't going to be done very soon, though, so as someone who has been bitten by bad signatures in the past, a little more inconsistency is far preferable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good to me, I'll make the change once I'm home from work.