Skip to content

Add peek_index to Enumerate #130682

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

Add peek_index to Enumerate #130682

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

x4exr
Copy link
Contributor

@x4exr x4exr commented Sep 22, 2024

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 22, 2024

r? @cuviper

rustbot has assigned @cuviper.
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 Sep 22, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@x4exr x4exr mentioned this pull request Sep 22, 2024
Open
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Sep 23, 2024

While I do like the name peek_index, it's not what the libs-api team agreed on. This should be implemented as next_index like they preferred, and then peek_index or other names can be discussed in the tracking issue.

@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Sep 24, 2024

@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 24, 2024
@x4exr
Copy link
Contributor Author

x4exr commented Sep 24, 2024

While I do like the name peek_index, it's not what the libs-api team agreed on. This should be implemented as next_index like they preferred, and then peek_index or other names can be discussed in the tracking issue.

My apologies, once I return today I will update the PR.

@tgross35
Copy link
Contributor

Just an fyi, this should get a squash before merge

@alex-semenyuk
Copy link
Member

@x4exr
From wg-triage. Do you have any updates on this PR?

@x4exr
Copy link
Contributor Author

x4exr commented Nov 9, 2024

Iirc i was supposed to change the feature name before this is ready to merge

@alex-semenyuk
Copy link
Member

@x4exr
Thanks for your contribution.

Iirc i was supposed to change the feature name before this is ready to merge

Could you please do this and

Just an fyi, this should get a squash before merge

@x4exr
Copy link
Contributor Author

x4exr commented Jan 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

if I'm being honest I have no clue what I'm doing with git
I once tried squashing this and it vasicly did nothing

@tgross35
Copy link
Contributor

It should be something like git rebase -i master --keep-base (--keep-base means it won't actually change the base, i.e. rebases on to whatever master looked like when you created the branch rather than what master looks like today). This will open an editor with a bunch of lines starting with pick ... (one line per commit). For everything except the first commit, change pick to f or fixup, then save & quit.

This will combine all later commits into the first one, discarding their messages (s or squash instead of f would combine their messages, but it doesn't look like there is anything to keep here). Then once that is done, check that git log/git show HEAD looks correct and git push --force-with-lease to update the PR.

@Dylan-DPC
Copy link
Member

@x4exr any updates on this? thanks

@alex-semenyuk
Copy link
Member

@x4exr
From wg-triage. Closed this PR due to inactivity. Feel free to reopen or raised new one. Thanks for your efforts.

@jogru0 jogru0 mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2025
Merged
ChrisDenton added a commit to ChrisDenton/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 19, 2025
@ChrisDenton
Rollup merge of rust-lang#139533 - jogru0:130711, r=Mark-Simulacrum
92adbd3 
add next_index to Enumerate

Proposal: rust-lang/libs-team#435
Tracking Issue: rust-lang#130711

This basically just reopens rust-lang#130682 but squashed and with the new function and the feature gate renamed to `next_index.`

There are two questions I have already:
- Shouldn't we add test coverage for that? I'm happy to provide some, but I might need a pointer to where these test would be.
  - Maybe I could actually also add a doctest?
- For now, I just renamed the feature name in the unstable attribute to `next_index`, as well, so it matches the new name of the function. Is that okay? And can I just do that and use any string, or is there a sealed list of features defined somewhere where I also need to change the name?
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 20, 2025
@rust-timer
Unrolled build for rust-lang#139533
f81e51c 
Rollup merge of rust-lang#139533 - jogru0:130711, r=Mark-Simulacrum

add next_index to Enumerate

Proposal: rust-lang/libs-team#435
Tracking Issue: rust-lang#130711

This basically just reopens rust-lang#130682 but squashed and with the new function and the feature gate renamed to `next_index.`

There are two questions I have already:
- Shouldn't we add test coverage for that? I'm happy to provide some, but I might need a pointer to where these test would be.
  - Maybe I could actually also add a doctest?
- For now, I just renamed the feature name in the unstable attribute to `next_index`, as well, so it matches the new name of the function. Is that okay? And can I just do that and use any string, or is there a sealed list of features defined somewhere where I also need to change the name?
github-actions bot pushed a commit to model-checking/verify-rust-std that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2025
@ChrisDenton
Rollup merge of rust-lang#139533 - jogru0:130711, r=Mark-Simulacrum
9bff288 
add next_index to Enumerate

Proposal: rust-lang/libs-team#435
Tracking Issue: rust-lang#130711

This basically just reopens rust-lang#130682 but squashed and with the new function and the feature gate renamed to `next_index.`

There are two questions I have already:
- Shouldn't we add test coverage for that? I'm happy to provide some, but I might need a pointer to where these test would be.
  - Maybe I could actually also add a doctest?
- For now, I just renamed the feature name in the unstable attribute to `next_index`, as well, so it matches the new name of the function. Is that okay? And can I just do that and use any string, or is there a sealed list of features defined somewhere where I also need to change the name?
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@workingjubilee workingjubilee workingjubilee left review comments

Assignees

@cuviper cuviper

Labels
S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@x4exr @rustbot @rust-log-analyzer @cuviper @tgross35 @alex-semenyuk @Dylan-DPC @workingjubilee