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.
It was simpler to just give the variants a value instead of listing out all the cases for (*self, *other) in a match statement or writing spaghetti code. This makes the `cmp` method easier to use with FFI too, since you're a cast away from an idiomatic C comparator function. It would be fine implemented another way though.
This removes some of the easier instances of mutable fields where the explicit self can just become `&mut self` along with removing some unsafe blocks which aren't necessary any more now that purity is gone.
Most of #4568 is done, except for [one case](https://github.com/alexcrichton/rust/blob/less-mut-fields/src/libcore/vec.rs#L1754) where it looks like it has to do with it being a `const` vector. Removing the unsafe block yields:
```
/Users/alex/code/rust2/src/libcore/vec.rs:1755:12: 1755:16 error: illegal borrow unless pure: creating immutable alias to const vec content
/Users/alex/code/rust2/src/libcore/vec.rs:1755 for self.each |e| {
^~~~
/Users/alex/code/rust2/src/libcore/vec.rs:1757:8: 1757:9 note: impure due to access to impure function
/Users/alex/code/rust2/src/libcore/vec.rs:1757 }
^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
I also didn't delve too much into removing mutable fields with `Cell` or `transmute` and friends.
Performing a deep copy isn't ever desired for a persistent data
structure, and it requires a more complex implementation to do
correctly. A deep copy needs to check for cycles to avoid an infinite
loop.
Performing a deep copy isn't ever desired for a persistent data
structure, and it requires a more complex implementation to do
correctly. A deep copy needs to check for cycles to avoid an infinite
loop.
A number like 0b1_1111_1111 == 511 would be parsed to Some(255u8) rather than None
by from_str_common, since 255 * 2 + 1 == 255 (mod 256) so the overflow wasn't detected.
Only applied to conversions where the radix was a power of 2, and where all digits
repeated.
Closes#5770.
bare function store (which is not in fact a kind of value) but rather
ty::TraitRef. Removes many uses of fail!() and other telltale signs of
type-semantic mismatch.
cc #4183 (not a fix, but related)
This pull request removes some mut-fields from at_vec, str, vec, unstable, and cell. Sadly in case of Cell this required using either transmute_mut (2 instances) or changing the interface. I chose the former. Perhaps it would be a good idea to merge Cell and Option, and take that opportunity to change the interface to use '&mut self' instead of '&self' (which would enable removing the transmutations) for take and put_back.
r?
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.
When I submitted #5659, it apparently caused some test failures. Then, because I left it in my incoming rather than making a new branch, I deleted my commit.
Let's try this again, this time, with its own branch so that I don't screw it up.
r?
It seems nobody can figure out whether this is _supposed to_ make a difference anymore, and in testing it seems to work either way, so I removed it. One less alarming warning during a fresh build.
