Renamed retain_mut to retain on LinkedList as mentioned in the ACP #143529
+2
−37
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #143206 (Align attr fixes) - #143236 (Stabilize `mixed_integer_ops_unsigned_sub`) - #143344 (Port `#[path]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure ) - #143359 (Link to 2024 edition page for `!` fallback changes) - #143456 (mbe: Change `unused_macro_rules` to a `DenseBitSet`) - #143529 (Renamed retain_mut to retain on LinkedList as mentioned in the ACP) - #143535 (Remove duplicate word) - #143544 (compiler: rename BareFn to FnPtr) - #143552 (lib: more eagerly return `self.len()` from `ceil_char_boundary`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
Rollup merge of #143529 - pixel27:master, r=jhpratt Renamed retain_mut to retain on LinkedList as mentioned in the ACP This is for proposal: rust-lang/libs-team#250 The original check-in (#114136) contained both methods **retain** and **retain_mut**, which does not conform to rust-lang/libs-team#250 (comment). I updated the retain documentation to specify **&mut e**, removed the **retain** method and renamed **retain_mut** to **retain** to conform to the request. The pull request doesn't really contain much that is new, just removes the unwanted method to meet the requirements. I've run the tests "library/alloc" on the code and no issues. Hopefully I'm not stepping on the original author's toes. I just ran across a need for the method and wondered why it was unstable.
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to devnexen/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2025
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang/rust#143206 (Align attr fixes) - rust-lang/rust#143236 (Stabilize `mixed_integer_ops_unsigned_sub`) - rust-lang/rust#143344 (Port `#[path]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure ) - rust-lang/rust#143359 (Link to 2024 edition page for `!` fallback changes) - rust-lang/rust#143456 (mbe: Change `unused_macro_rules` to a `DenseBitSet`) - rust-lang/rust#143529 (Renamed retain_mut to retain on LinkedList as mentioned in the ACP) - rust-lang/rust#143535 (Remove duplicate word) - rust-lang/rust#143544 (compiler: rename BareFn to FnPtr) - rust-lang/rust#143552 (lib: more eagerly return `self.len()` from `ceil_char_boundary`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to model-checking/verify-rust-std
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2025
Renamed retain_mut to retain on LinkedList as mentioned in the ACP This is for proposal: rust-lang/libs-team#250 The original check-in (rust-lang#114136) contained both methods **retain** and **retain_mut**, which does not conform to rust-lang/libs-team#250 (comment). I updated the retain documentation to specify **&mut e**, removed the **retain** method and renamed **retain_mut** to **retain** to conform to the request. The pull request doesn't really contain much that is new, just removes the unwanted method to meet the requirements. I've run the tests "library/alloc" on the code and no issues. Hopefully I'm not stepping on the original author's toes. I just ran across a need for the method and wondered why it was unstable.
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to model-checking/verify-rust-std
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2025
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#143206 (Align attr fixes) - rust-lang#143236 (Stabilize `mixed_integer_ops_unsigned_sub`) - rust-lang#143344 (Port `#[path]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure ) - rust-lang#143359 (Link to 2024 edition page for `!` fallback changes) - rust-lang#143456 (mbe: Change `unused_macro_rules` to a `DenseBitSet`) - rust-lang#143529 (Renamed retain_mut to retain on LinkedList as mentioned in the ACP) - rust-lang#143535 (Remove duplicate word) - rust-lang#143544 (compiler: rename BareFn to FnPtr) - rust-lang#143552 (lib: more eagerly return `self.len()` from `ceil_char_boundary`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is for proposal: rust-lang/libs-team#250
The original check-in (#114136) contained both methods retain and retain_mut, which does not conform to rust-lang/libs-team#250 (comment).
I updated the retain documentation to specify &mut e, removed the retain method and renamed retain_mut to retain to conform to the request.
The pull request doesn't really contain much that is new, just removes the unwanted method to meet the requirements.
I've run the tests "library/alloc" on the code and no issues.
Hopefully I'm not stepping on the original author's toes. I just ran across a need for the method and wondered why it was unstable.