Removing the extraneous not_equal implementation for slices #36310
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @brson (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
This looks right to me but since it's removing specialization I'm a little unsure. @sfackler what do you think? |
|
Removing specialization? I tried to keep it in there. Perhaps I made a mistake? |
|
@jstnlef I should have been more precise. It looks to me like the generated code will still specialized via |
|
Ah fair enough. That makes sense. |
|
This seems reasonable to me |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit a77b55d has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit a77b55d with merge a5dbf8a... |
…ackler Removing the extraneous not_equal implementation for slices Happened to stumble upon this one awhile back. Seemed a bit silly to have both the equals and not equals implementation when they're so similar.
Happened to stumble upon this one awhile back. Seemed a bit silly to have both the equals and not equals implementation when they're so similar.