I don't have a strong opinion on the function vs. method, but there's no point in having both. I'd like to make a `repeat` adaptor like Python/Haskell for turning a value into an infinite stream of the value, so this has to at least be renamed.
fail!() used to require owned strings but can handle static strings
now. Also, it can pass its arguments to fmt!() on its own, no need for
the caller to call fmt!() itself.
This moves all the basic random value generation into the Rand instances for
each type and then removes the `gen_int`, `gen_char` (etc) methods on RngUtil,
leaving only the generic `gen` and the more specialised methods.
Also, removes some imports that are redundant due to a `use core::prelude::*`
statement.
rather than a tuple. The current setup iterates over
`BaseIter<(&'self K, &'self V)>` where 'self is a lifetime declared
*in the each method*. You can't place such a type in
the impl declaration. The compiler currently allows it,
but this will not be legal under #5656 and I'm pretty sure
it's not sound now.
This naming is free now that `oldmap` has finally been removed, so this is a search-and-replace to take advantage of that. It might as well be called `HashMap` instead of being named after the specific implementation, since there's only one.
SipHash distributes keys so well that I don't think there will ever be much need to use anything but a simple hash table with open addressing. If there *is* a better way to do it, it will probably be better in all cases and can just be the default implementation.
A cuckoo-hashing implementation combining a weaker hash with SipHash could be useful, but that won't be as general purpose - you would need to write a separate fast hash function specialized for the type to really take advantage of it (like taking a page from libstdc++/libc++ and just using the integer value as the "hash"). I think a more specific naming for a truly alternative implementation like that would be fine, with the nice naming reserved for the general purpose container.
