Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct #42134
Merged
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
Not being an enum improves ergonomics, especially since NonEmpty could be Empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements RFC 1980
Fixes rust-lang#42135 Found while fixing run-pass/range_inclusive test failure.
frewsxcv
added
the
T-libs-api
carols10cents
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Awesome! LGTM. @bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit 7eaca60 has been approved by |
Mark-Simulacrum
added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
Mark-Simulacrum
added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
Mark-Simulacrum
added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2017
Mark-Simulacrum
added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
Mark-Simulacrum
added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2017
…turon Make RangeInclusive just a two-field struct Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait. Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue rust-lang#28237. This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming `RangeInclusive` directly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time? r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2017
Not being an enum improves ergonomics and consistency, especially since NonEmpty variant wasn't prevented from being empty. It can still be iterable without an extra "done" bit by making the range have !(start <= end), which is even possible without changing the Step trait.
Implements merged rust-lang/rfcs#1980; tracking issue #28237.
This is definitely a breaking change to anything consuming
RangeInclusivedirectly (not as an Iterator) or constructing it without using the sugar. Is there some change that would make sense before this so compilation failures could be compatibly fixed ahead of time?r? @aturon (as FCP proposer on the RFC)