Add MaybeUninit::assume_init_drop.
`ManuallyDrop`'s documentation tells the user to use `MaybeUninit` instead when handling uninitialized data. However, the main functionality of `ManuallyDrop` (`drop`) is not available directly on `MaybeUninit`. Adding it makes it easier to switch from one to the other.
I re-used the `maybe_uninit_extra` feature and tracking issue number (#63567), since it seems very related. (And to avoid creating too many features tracking issues for `MaybeUninit`.)
Add saturating methods for `Duration`
In some project, I needed a `saturating_add` method for `Duration`. I implemented it myself but i thought it would be a nice addition to the standard library as it matches closely with the integers types.
3 new methods have been introduced and are gated by the new `duration_saturating_ops` unstable feature:
* `Duration::saturating_add`
* `Duration::saturating_sub`
* `Duration::saturating_mul`
If have left the tracking issue to `none` for now as I want first to understand if those methods would be acceptable at all. If agreed, I'll update the PR with the tracking issue.
Further more, to match the behavior of integers types, I introduced 2 associated constants:
* `Duration::MIN`: this one is somehow a duplicate from `Duration::zero()` method, but at the time this method was added, `MIN` was rejected as it was considered a different semantic (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72790#issuecomment-636511743).
* `Duration::MAX`
Both have been gated by the already existing unstable feature `duration_constants`, I can introduce a new unstable feature if needed or just re-use the `duration_saturating_ops`.
We might have to decide whether:
* `MIN` should be replaced by `ZERO`?
* associated constants over methods?
Add `slice::array_chunks_mut`
This follows `array_chunks` from #74373 with a mutable version, `array_chunks_mut`. The implementation is identical apart from mutability. The new tests are adaptations of the `chunks_exact_mut` tests, plus an inference test like the one for `array_chunks`.
I reused the unstable feature `array_chunks` and tracking issue #74985, but I can separate that if desired.
r? `@withoutboats`
cc `@lcnr`
Stabilize core::future::{pending,ready}
This PR stabilizes `core::future::{pending,ready}`, tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70921.
## Motivation
These functions have been on nightly for three months now, and have lived as part of the futures ecosystem for several years. In that time these functions have undergone several iterations, with [the `async-std` impls](https://docs.rs/async-std/1.6.2/async_std/future/index.html) probably diverging the most (using `async fn`, which in hindsight was a mistake).
It seems the space around these functions has been _thoroughly_ explored over the last couple of years, and the ecosystem has settled on the current shape of the functions. It seems highly unlikely we'd want to make any further changes to these functions, so I propose we stabilize.
## Implementation notes
This stabilization PR was fairly straightforward; this feature has already thoroughly been reviewed by the libs team already in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/70834. So all this PR does is remove the feature gate.
Use intra-doc links in `core::ptr`
Part of #75080.
The only link that I did not change is a link to a function on the
`pointer` primitive because intra-doc links for the `pointer` primitive
don't work yet (see #63351).
---
@rustbot modify labels: A-intra-doc-links T-doc
`write` is ambiguous because there's also a macro called `write`.
Also removed unnecessary and potentially confusing link to a function in
its own docs.
The only link that I did not change is a link to a function on the
`pointer` primitive because intra-doc links for the `pointer` primitive
don't work yet (see #63351).
ManuallyDrop's documentation tells the user to use MaybeUninit instead
when handling uninitialized data. However, the main functionality of
ManuallyDrop (drop) was not available directly on MaybeUninit. Adding it
makes it easier to switch from one to the other.
Remove unneeded `#[cfg(not(test))]` from libcore
This fixes rust-analyzer inside these modules (currently it does not analyze them, assuming they're configured out).
Use ops::ControlFlow in rustc_data_structures::graph::iterate
Since I only know about this because you mentioned it,
r? @ecstatic-morse
If we're not supposed to use new `core` things in compiler for a while then feel free to close, but it felt reasonable to merge the two types since they're the same, and it might be convenient for people to use `?` in their traversal code.
(This doesn't do the type parameter swap; NoraCodes has signed up to do that one.)
Indent a note to make folding work nicer
Sublime Text folds code based on indentation. It maybe an unnecessary change, but does it look nicer after that ?
Move various ui const tests to `library`
Move:
- `src\test\ui\consts\const-nonzero.rs` to `library\core`
- `src\test\ui\consts\ascii.rs` to `library\core`
- `src\test\ui\consts\cow-is-borrowed` to `library\alloc`
Part of #76268
r? @matklad
Try to improve the documentation of `filter()` and `filter_map()`.
I believe the documentation is currently a little misleading.
For example, in the docs for `filter()`:
> If the closure returns `false`, it will try again, and call the closure on
> the next element, seeing if it passes the test.
This kind of implies that if the closure returns true then we *don't* "try
again" and no further elements are considered. In actuality that's not the
case, every element is tried regardless of what happened with the previous
element.
This change tries to clarify that by removing the uses of "try again"
altogether.
Use Arc::clone and Rc::clone in documentation
This PR replaces uses of `x.clone()` by `Rc::clone(&x)` (or `Arc::clone(&x)`) to better match the documentation for those types.
@rustbot modify labels: T-doc
I believe the documentation is currently a little misleading.
For example, in the docs for `filter()`:
> If the closure returns `false`, it will try again, and call the closure on
> the next element, seeing if it passes the test.
This kind of implies that if the closure returns true then we *don't* "try
again" and no further elements are considered. In actuality that's not the
case, every element is tried regardless of what happened with the previous
element.
This change tries to clarify that by removing the uses of "try again"
altogether.
