* Add “complex” mappings to `char::to_lowercase` and `char::to_uppercase`, making them yield sometimes more than on `char`: #25800. `str::to_lowercase` and `str::to_uppercase` are affected as well.
* Add `char::to_titlecase`, since it’s the same algorithm (just different data). However this does **not** add `str::to_titlecase`, as that would require UAX#29 Unicode Text Segmentation which we decided not to include in of `std`: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1054 I made `char::to_titlecase` immediately `#[stable]`, since it’s so similar to `char::to_uppercase` that’s already stable. Let me know if it should be `#[unstable]` for a while.
* Add a special case for upper-case Sigma in word-final position in `str::to_lowercase`: #26035. This is the only language-independent conditional mapping currently in `SpecialCasing.txt`.
* Stabilize `str::to_lowercase` and `str::to_uppercase`. The `&self -> String` on `str` signature seems straightforward enough, and the only relevant issue I’ve found is #24536 about naming. But `char` already has stable methods with the same name, and deprecating them for a rename doesn’t seem worth it.
r? @alexcrichton
With the latter is provided by the `From` conversion trait, the former is now completely redundant. Their code is identical. Let’s deprecate now and plan to remove in the next cycle. (It’s `#[unstable]`.)
r? @alexcrichton
CC @nagisa
I had to use `impl<'a, V: Copy> Extend<(usize, &'a V)> for VecMap<V>` instead of `impl<'a, V: Copy> Extend<(&'a usize, &'a V)> for VecMap<V>` as that's what is needed for doing
```rust
let mut a = VecMap::new();
let b = VecMap::new();
b.insert(1, "foo");
a.extend(&b)
```
I can squash the commits after review.
r? @Gankro
The recent bug that was found in LinkedList reminded me of some general cleanup
that's been waiting for some time.
- Use a loop from the front in Drop, it works just as well and without an unsafe block
- Change Rawlink methods to use `unsafe` in an idiomatic way. This does mean that
we need an unsafe block for each dereference of a raw link. Even then, the extent
of unsafe-critical code is even larger of course, since safety depends on the whole
data structure's integrity. This is a general problem we are aware of.
- Some cleanup just to try to decrease the amount of Rawlink handling.
This wasn't marked inline, so wasn't being inlined cross-crate. It's
actually a no-op function, since it's a wrapper around `mem::transmute`.
Marking it inline means that programs calling it can see that it's a
no-op and act accordingly during optimisation.
This wasn't marked inline, so wasn't being inlined cross-crate. It's
actually a no-op function, since it's a wrapper around `mem::transmute`.
Marking it inline means that programs calling it can see that it's a
no-op and act accordingly during optimisation.
collections: Make BinaryHeap panic safe in sift_up / sift_down
Use a struct called Hole that keeps track of an invalid location
in the vector and fills the hole on drop.
I include a run-pass test that the current BinaryHeap fails, and the new
one passes.
NOTE: The BinaryHeap will still be inconsistent after a comparison fails. It will
not have the heap property. What we fix is just that elements will be valid
values.
This is actually a performance win -- the new code does not bother to write in `zeroed()`
values in the holes, it just leaves them as they were.
Net result is something like a 5% decrease in runtime for `BinaryHeap::from_vec`. This
can be further improved by using unchecked indexing (I confirmed it makes a difference,
not a surprise with the non-sequential access going on), but let's leave that for another PR.
Safety first 😉Fixes#25842
Use a struct called Hole that keeps track of an invalid location
in the vector and fills the hole on drop.
I include a run-pass test that the current BinaryHeap fails, and the new
one passes.
Fixes#25842
The `debug_builders` feature is up for 1.1 stabilization in #24028. This commit stabilizes the API as-is with no changes.
Some nits that @alexcrichton mentioned that may be worth discussing now if anyone cares:
* Should `debug_tuple_struct` and `DebugTupleStruct` be used instead of `debug_tuple` and `DebugTuple`? It's more typing but is a technically more correct name.
* `DebugStruct` and `DebugTuple` have `field` methods while `DebugSet`, `DebugMap` and `DebugList` have `entry` methods. Should we switch those to something else for consistency?
cc @alexcrichton @aturon
collections: Reorder slice methods to improve API docs
We have an evolutionary history whose traces are still visible in the
slice docs today.
Some heuristics:
* Group method and method_mut together
* Group method and method_by together
* Group by use case, here we have roughly:
Basic interrogators (len)
Mutation (swap)
Iterators (iter)
Segmentation (split)
Searching (contains)
Permutations (permutations)
Misc (clone_from_slice)
We have an evolutionary history whose traces are still visible in the
slice docs today.
Some heuristics:
* Group method and method_mut together
* Group method and method_by together
* Group by use case, here we have roughly:
Basic interrogators (len)
Mutation (swap)
Iterators (iter)
Segmentation (split)
Searching (contains)
Permutations (permutations)
Misc (clone_from_slice)
Use stable code in doc examples (libcollections)
Main task is to change from String::from_str to String::from in examples for String
(the latter constructor is stable). While I'm at it, also remove redundant feature flags,
fix some other instances of unstable code in examples (in examples for stable
methods), and remove some use of usize in examples too.
