Provide more useful documentation of conversion methods
I thought that the documentation for these methods needed to be a bit more explanatory for new users. For advanced users, the comments are relatively unnecessary. I think it would be useful to explain precisely what the method does. As a new user, when you see the `into` method, where the type is inferred, if you are new you don't even know what you convert to, because it is implicit. I believe this can help new users understand.
I thought that the documentation for these methods needed to be a bit more explanatory for new users. For advanced users, the comments are relatively unnecessary. I think it would be useful to explain precisely what the method does. As a new user, when you see the `into` method, where the type is inferred, if you are new you don't even know what you convert to, because it is implicit. I believe this can help new users understand.
Document that `Option<extern "abi" fn>` discriminant elision applies for any ABI
The current phrasing was not very clear on that aspect.
r? `@RalfJung`
`@rustbot` modify labels: A-docs A-ffi
Derive Eq for std::cmp::Ordering, instead of using manual impl.
This allows consts of type Ordering to be used in patterns, and with feature(adt_const_params) allows using `Ordering` as a const generic parameter.
Currently, `std::cmp::Ordering` implements `Eq` using a manually written `impl Eq for Ordering {}`, instead of `derive(Eq)`. This means that it does not implement `StructuralEq`.
This commit removes the manually written impl, and adds `derive(Eq)` to `Ordering`, so that it will implement `StructuralEq`.
Let `try_collect` take advantage of `try_fold` overrides
No public API changes.
With this change, `try_collect` (#94047) is no longer going through the `impl Iterator for &mut impl Iterator`, and thus will be able to use `try_fold` overrides instead of being forced through `next` for every element.
Here's the test added, to see that it fails before this PR (once a new enough nightly is out): https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=462f2896f2fed2c238ee63ca1a7e7c56
This might as well go to the same person as my last `try_process` PR (#93572), so
r? ``@yaahc``
Stabilize ADX target feature
This is a continuation of #60109, which noted that while the ADX intrinsics were stabilized, the corresponding target feature never was.
This PR follows the same general structure and stabilizes the ADX target feature.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44839 - tracking issue for target feature
Format core and std macro rules, removing needless surrounding blocks
Many of the asserting and printing macros in `core` and `std` are written with prehistoric-looking formatting, like this:
335ffbfa54/library/std/src/macros.rs (L96-L101)
In modern Rust style this would conventionally be written as follows instead, always using braces and a trailing semicolon on the macro arms:
af53809c87/library/std/src/macros.rs (L98-L105)
Getting rid of the unneeded braces inside the expansion reduces extraneous indentation in macro-expanded code. For example:
```rust
println!("repro {}", true);
```
```rust
// before:
{
::std::io::_print(
::core::fmt::Arguments::new_v1(
&["repro ", "\n"],
&[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&true)],
),
);
};
```
```rust
// after:
::std::io::_print(
::core::fmt::Arguments::new_v1(
&["repro ", "\n"],
&[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&true)],
),
);
```
This is a continuation of #60109, which noted that while the ADX
intrinsics were stabilized, the corresponding target feature never was.
This PR follows the same general structure and stabilizes the ADX target
feature.
Add `Atomic*::get_mut_slice`
This PR adds the inverse of `Atomic*::from_mut_slice` introduced in #94384 with the following API:
```rust
// core::sync::atomic
impl Atomic* {
fn get_mut_slice(this: &mut [Self]) -> &mut [*];
}
```
cc `@cuviper`
-----
For now I've used the same tracking issue as `Atomic*::from_mut_slice`, should I open a new one?
Enable conditional checking of values in the Rust codebase
This pull-request enable conditional checking of (well known) values in the Rust codebase.
Well known values were added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94362. All the `target_*` values are taken from all the built-in targets which is why some extra values were needed do be added as they are not (yet ?) defined in any built-in targets.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
Make float parsing docs more comprehensive
I was working on some code with some specialized restrictions on float parsing. I noticed the doc comments for `f32::from_str` and `f64::from_str` were missing several cases of valid inputs that are otherwise difficult to discover without looking at source code.
I'm not sure if the doc comments were initially intended to contain a comprehensive description of valid inputs, but I figured it's useful to include these extra cases for reference.
Rename `IntoFuture::Future` to `IntoFuture::IntoFuture`
Ref: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67644#issuecomment-1051401459
This renames `IntoFuture::Future` to `IntoFuture::IntoFuture`. This adds the `Into*` prefix to the associated type, similar to the [`IntoIterator::IntoIter`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.IntoIterator.html#associatedtype.IntoIter) associated type. It's my mistake we didn't do so in the first place. This fixes that and brings the two closer together. Thanks!
### References
__`IntoIterator` trait def__
```rust
pub trait IntoIterator {
type Item;
type IntoIter: Iterator<Item = Self::Item>;
fn into_iter(self) -> Self::IntoIter;
}
```
__`IntoFuture` trait def__
```rust
pub trait IntoFuture {
type Output;
type IntoFuture: Future<Output = Self::Output>; // Prior to this PR: `type Future:`
fn into_future(self) -> Self::IntoFuture;
}
```
cc/ `@eholk` `@rust-lang/wg-async`
Stabilise inherent_ascii_escape (FCP in #77174)
Implements #77174, which completed its FCP.
This does *not* deprecate any existing methods or structs, as that is tracked in #93887. That stated, people should prefer using `u8::escape_ascii` to `std::ascii::escape_default`.
More practical examples for `Option::and_then` & `Result::and_then`
To be blatantly honest, I think the current example given for `Option::and_then` is objectively terrible. (No offence to whoever wrote them initially.)
```rust
fn sq(x: u32) -> Option<u32> { Some(x * x) }
fn nope(_: u32) -> Option<u32> { None }
assert_eq!(Some(2).and_then(sq).and_then(sq), Some(16));
assert_eq!(Some(2).and_then(sq).and_then(nope), None);
assert_eq!(Some(2).and_then(nope).and_then(sq), None);
assert_eq!(None.and_then(sq).and_then(sq), None);
```
Current example:
- does not demonstrate that `and_then` converts `Option<T>` to `Option<U>`
- is far removed from any realistic code
- generally just causes more confusion than it helps
So I replaced them with two blocks:
- the first one shows basic usage (including the type conversion)
- the second one shows an example of typical usage
Same thing with `Result::and_then`.
Hopefully this helps with clarity.
