-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Implement DoubleEndedIterator for CaseMappingIter #60112
Implement DoubleEndedIterator for CaseMappingIter #60112
Conversation
r? @cramertj (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
56e48ca
to
75bd00f
Compare
r? @Amanieu |
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
75bd00f
to
8bc563d
Compare
8bc563d
to
89d2e51
Compare
@rfcbot fcp merge |
Team member @Amanieu has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), 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. |
Could you give an example of when you'd want to use this? |
This was denied before in #38968. |
There is no real point, it's mostly for consistency, I cannot see the CaseMappingIter ever changing in a way which would cause issues with having a DoubleEndedIterator implementation. About ExactSizeIterator, it was implemented in #58778 (although ExactSizeIterator is somewhat more useful), which I did implement while considering a potential Clippy lint requiring |
Our policy is generally to not take code that no one wants to use. Every new API imposes some cost, and we should at least be getting some value out of it. |
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete. As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed. The RFC will be merged soon. |
r? @sfackler |
cc @rust-lang/libs Can someone please review this? :) |
Looks like a review was provided but since there aren't compelling use cases for it and it's otherwise seen as perhaps a bit too much code for libstd for now, I'm going to close this. |
For future reference (in case somebody found this pull request), this was implemented in #88858. |
No description provided.