Allow setting the limit on std::io::Take.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Fixes#27269.

[rust-highfive]

r? @sfackler

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Arguably this can also be not implemented since out-of-tree implementation should involve no more than take.into_inner().take(new_limit), though this is more ergonomic (&mut self vs self).

[sfackler]

This seems reasonable to me - might be worth explicitly mentioning that it doesn't "reset" the count of what's been read?

@rfcbot fcp merge

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I'll fix the code if we decide to move forward with this, hopefully landing after #42612.

[rfcbot]

Team member @sfackler has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

• @BurntSushi
• @Kimundi
• @alexcrichton
• @aturon
• @brson
• @dtolnay
• @sfackler

No concerns currently listed.

Once these reviewers reach consensus, 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.

[alexcrichton]

ping @aturon / @brson on checkboxes

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@brson I believe this is only waiting on approval from you, will push a fix for the nit @sfackler noted with regards to docs.

[carols10cents]

ping @brson, still waiting for your checkbox here!

[aturon]

"do not affect the effect" is a somewhat confusing phrasing. Also missing period.

[aturon]

@Mark-Simulacrum

Left a nit, otherwise r=me

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Fixed the nit (I think). @brson hasn't checked off yet, so I'm hesitant to r+ without that.

[aturon]

@bors: r+

@Mark-Simulacrum for PRs (rather than RFCs), after a week if most folks have signed off we go forward.

[bors]

📌 Commit 7109d03 has been approved by aturon

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 7109d03 with merge 8ac29bd...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: aturon
Pushing 8ac29bd to master...