Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct - #42134
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Not being an enum improves ergonomics, especially since NonEmpty could be Empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements RFC 1980
Fixesrust-lang#42135 Found while fixing run-pass/range_inclusive test failure.
aturon
commented
May 23, 2017
Contributor
Awesome! LGTM. @bors: r+ |
bors
commented
May 23, 2017
Collaborator
📌 Commit 7eaca60 has been approved by |
Mark-Simulacrum added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
Mark-Simulacrum added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
Mark-Simulacrum added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
bors added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2017
Mark-Simulacrum added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
Mark-Simulacrum added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
bors added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2017
8 tasks
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait.
Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue #28237.
This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming
RangeInclusivedirectly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time?r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)