Skip to content
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

Rollup of 4 pull requests #90313

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

CAD97 and others added 8 commits October 25, 2021 22:44
Remove fNN::lerp

Lerp is [surprisingly complex with multiple tradeoffs depending on what guarantees you want to provide](rust-lang#86269 (comment)) (and what you're willing to drop for raw speed), so we don't have consensus on what implementation to use, let alone what signature - `t.lerp(a, b)` nicely puts `a, b` together, but makes dispatch to lerp custom types with the same signature basically impossible, and major ecosystem crates (e.g. nalgebra, glium) use `a.lerp(b, t)`, which is easily confusable. It was suggested to maybe provide a `Lerp<T>` trait and `t.lerp([a, b])`, which _could_ be implemented by downstream math libraries for their types, but also significantly raises the bar from a simple fNN method to a full trait, and does nothing to solve the implementation question. (It also raises the question of whether we'd support higher-order bezier interpolation.)

The only consensus we have is the lack of consensus, and the [general temperature](rust-lang#86269 (comment)) is that we should just remove this method (giving the method space back to 3rd party libs) and revisit this if (and likely only if) IEEE adds lerp to their specification.

If people want a lerp, they're _probably_ already using (or writing) a math support library, which provides a lerp function for its custom math types and can provide the same lerp implementation for the primitive types via an extension trait.

See also [previous Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/lerp.20API.20design)

cc `@clarfonthey` (original PR author), `@m-ou-se` (original r+), `@scottmcm` (last voice in tracking issue, prompted me to post this)

Closes rust-lang#86269 (removed)
…r, r=jyn514

Remove unneeded into_iter

As `@camelid` mentionned [here](rust-lang#89430 (comment)), the `into_iter` was unneeded.

r? `@camelid`
… r=JohnTitor

Add regression test for issue 90164

Closes rust-lang#90164 (previously fixed by rust-lang#90181)
@rustbot rustbot added the rollup A PR which is a rollup label Oct 26, 2021
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ p=4 rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 26, 2021

📌 Commit 7bb3917 has been approved by matthiaskrgr

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Oct 26, 2021
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr deleted the rollup-zmacsh5 branch November 20, 2021 15:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants