dc14c432f5
7741: Add convert_for_to_iter_for_each assist r=mattyhall a=mattyhall Implements one direction of #7681 I wonder if this tries to guess too much at the right thing here. A common pattern is: ```rust let col = vec![1, 2, 3]; for v in &mut col { *v *= 2; } // equivalent to: col.iter_mut().for_each(|v| *v *= 2); ``` I've tried to detect this case by checking if the expression after the `in` is a (mutable) reference and if not inserting iter()/iter_mut(). This is just a convention used in the stdlib however, so could sometimes be wrong. I'd be happy to make an improvement for this, but not sure what would be best. A few options spring to mind: 1. Only allow this for types that are known to have iter/iter_mut (ie stdlib types) 2. Try to check if iter/iter_mut exists and they return the right iterator type 3. Don't try to do this and just add `.into_iter()` to whatever is after `in` Co-authored-by: Matt Hall <matthew@quickbeam.me.uk> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||