Skip to content

/rust

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

Tracking issue for [T]::swap_with_slice feature #44030

Closed
scottmcm opened this Issue Aug 22, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
B-unstable C-tracking-issue T-libs final-comment-period
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
6 participants
@scottmcm @SimonSapin @rfcbot @sfackler @alexcrichton @shepmaster
@scottmcm
Copy link
Member

scottmcm commented Aug 22, 2017 •
edited

Exposes the simd-optimized ptr::swap_nonoverlapping in a safe API.

Pre-stabilization todo list:

  • Bikeshed: should it maybe be swap_slice instead? (See discussion in #44031)

@scottmcm scottmcm referenced this issue Aug 22, 2017

Merged

Add [T]::swap_with_slice #44031

@alexcrichton alexcrichton added B-unstable T-libs labels Aug 24, 2017

bors added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 25, 2017

@bors
Auto merge of #44031 - scottmcm:swap_with_slice, r=alexcrichton 
Add [T]::swap_with_slice

The safe version of a method from `ptr`, like `[T]::copy_from_slice` is.

Tracking issue: #44030
Loading status checks…
ba65645

@shepmaster shepmaster added the C-tracking-issue label Aug 25, 2017

@SimonSapin

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

SimonSapin commented Mar 17, 2018

Let’s get consensus to stabilize modulo naming:

@rfcbot fcp merge

In #44031 it seems like everyone is fine with both swap_with_slice and swap_slice, I tend to agree. Another option could be swap_slices, plural.
@rfcbot

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

rfcbot commented Mar 17, 2018 •
edited by aturon

Team member @SimonSapin has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@rfcbot rfcbot added the proposed-final-comment-period label Mar 17, 2018

@sfackler

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

sfackler commented Mar 17, 2018

The current name of swap_with_slice seems reasonable to me.

@rfcbot rfcbot added final-comment-period and removed proposed-final-comment-period labels Mar 19, 2018

@rfcbot

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

rfcbot commented Mar 19, 2018

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔
@rfcbot

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link

rfcbot commented Mar 29, 2018

The final comment period is now complete.

@tinaun tinaun referenced this issue Apr 17, 2018

Merged

stabilize a bunch of minor api additions #50017

bors added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 18, 2018

@bors
Auto merge of #50017 - tinaun:stabilize-all-the-things, r=sfackler 
stabilize a bunch of minor api additions

besides `ptr::NonNull::cast` (which is 4 days away from end of FCP) all of these have been finished with FCP for a few weeks now with minimal issues raised

* Closes #41020
* Closes #42818
* Closes #44030
* Closes #44400
* Closes #46507
* Closes #47653
* Closes #46344

the following functions will be stabilized in 1.27:
* `[T]::rsplit`
* `[T]::rsplit_mut`
* `[T]::swap_with_slice`
* `ptr::swap_nonoverlapping`
* `NonNull::cast`
* `Duration::from_micros`
* `Duration::from_nanos`
* `Duration::subsec_millis`
* `Duration::subsec_micros`
* `HashMap::remove_entry`
Loading status checks…
ac3c228

@bors bors closed this in #50017 Apr 18, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.