Vec Iterator inconsistencies

[DaGenix]

It seems like there are some inconsistencies regarding iterators in vec.rs. Just to pick two examples:

1. SplitIterator and MutSplitIterator yield an empty slice when used on an empty vector. ChunkIter and MutChunkIter do not.
2. SplitIterator and MutSplitIterator are named differently than ChunkIter and MutChunkIter.

Whats the correct behavior for vec iterators on an empty slice? Is there a good reason that I'm not thinking of that they behave differently?

Whats the correct naming convention?

@TeXitoi

[TeXitoi]

For the naming conventions, looking at vec.rs, there is much more FooIterator than FooIter. If a cleanup is proposed, I'll be in favor of FooIterator to limit the number of modification in the file.

For the empty element, I think that ChunkIter is correct, because we want to iterate on every element by chunks. Moreover, there is an assert for chunks of size 0 (sure, it can't work).

For SplitIterator the pattern is different. Take the canonical example of such an iterator: iterating on CSV fields. With a line like "a;b;c" you want 3 elements, so with ";;", you want 3 elements, for ";" you want 2, and for the empty string, you want 1.

Conclusion: IMHO, we can harmonize the Iterators' name, but the behavior of ChunkIter and SplitIterator is quite consistent.

@DaGenix If you are convinced, you can close this issue. You can also propose a PR with the homogenization of the Iterators' names.

[DaGenix]

That makes sense to me. Thanks!

[DaGenix]

And i'll open up a PR to convert all of the *Iter to *Iterator.

[DaGenix]

Opened #11001