Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Stabilize split_at_checked #124678

Merged

Conversation

UserIsntAvailable
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #119128

For the const version of slice::split_at_mut_checked, I'm reusing the const_slice_split_at_mut feature flag (#101804). I don't if it okay to reuse tracking issues or if it preferred to create new ones...

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 3, 2024

r? @m-ou-se

rustbot has assigned @m-ou-se.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels May 3, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@tgross35 tgross35 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had a PR in the works and came up with the same thing, you beat me to it :)

This PR makes the following API stable:

impl<T> [T] {
    // Stabilized as const
    pub const fn split_at_checked(&self, mid: usize) -> Option<(&[T], &[T])>;
    
    // Const stability moved to `const_slice_split_at_mut`
    pub const fn split_at_mut_checked(&mut self, mid: usize) -> Option<(&mut [T], &mut [T])>;
}

impl str {
    pub fn split_at_checked(&self, mid: usize) -> Option<(&str, &str)>;
    pub fn split_at_mut_checked(&mut self, mid: usize) -> Option<(&mut str, &mut str)>;
}

@jhpratt
Copy link
Member

jhpratt commented May 4, 2024

Reusing the feature flag for const is reasonable imo.

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 4, 2024

📌 Commit 4c286c7 has been approved by jhpratt

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 4, 2024
compiler-errors added a commit to compiler-errors/rust that referenced this pull request May 4, 2024
…plit-at-checked, r=jhpratt

Stabilize `split_at_checked`

Closes rust-lang#119128

For the const version of `slice::split_at_mut_checked`, I'm reusing the `const_slice_split_at_mut` feature flag (rust-lang#101804). I don't if it okay to reuse tracking issues or if it preferred to create new ones...
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 4, 2024
…mpiler-errors

Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#124418 (Use a proof tree visitor to refine the `Obligation` for error reporting in new solver)
 - rust-lang#124480 (Change `SIGPIPE` ui from `#[unix_sigpipe = "..."]` to `-Zon-broken-pipe=...`)
 - rust-lang#124648 (Trim crate graph)
 - rust-lang#124656 (release notes 1.78: add link to interior-mut breaking change)
 - rust-lang#124658 (Migrate `run-make/doctests-keep-binaries` to new rmake.rs format)
 - rust-lang#124678 (Stabilize `split_at_checked`)
 - rust-lang#124681 (zkvm: fix run_tests)
 - rust-lang#124687 (Make `Bounds.clauses` private)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 93ca906 into rust-lang:master May 4, 2024
6 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.80.0 milestone May 4, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 4, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#124678 - UserIsntAvailable:feat/stabilize-split-at-checked, r=jhpratt

Stabilize `split_at_checked`

Closes rust-lang#119128

For the const version of `slice::split_at_mut_checked`, I'm reusing the `const_slice_split_at_mut` feature flag (rust-lang#101804). I don't if it okay to reuse tracking issues or if it preferred to create new ones...
@UserIsntAvailable UserIsntAvailable deleted the feat/stabilize-split-at-checked branch May 4, 2024 16:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Tracking Issue for split_at_checked
6 participants