Change trait RangeArgument to struct RangeBounds. #43033

clarfonthey · 2017-07-03T18:27:52Z

This follows from the discussion in #30877. This removes the RangeArgument trait in favour of the RangeBounds struct, where RangeArgument<T> is loosely translated to Into<RangeBounds<T>>.

I'm still working on testing this but I'll upload the PR now and see how people feel.

Additionally, I was going to at some point refactor the code for dealing with ranges of usize into methods on RangeBounds<usize>. That isn't blocking on this commit, but it's something that should be done at some point.

rust-highfive · 2017-07-03T18:28:04Z

r? @BurntSushi

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

aidanhs · 2017-07-05T17:25:13Z

Hi @clarcharr, looks like there has been a bunch of CI failures like

[00:01:59] error[E0549]: rustc_deprecated attribute must be paired with either stable or unstable attribute
[00:01:59]    --> /checkout/src/liballoc/lib.rs:214:1
[00:01:59]     |
[00:01:59] 214 | pub use core::ops::Bound;
[00:01:59]     | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[00:01:59] 
[00:01:59] error: use of unstable library feature 'range_argument' (see issue #30877)
[00:01:59]   --> /checkout/src/liballoc/btree/map.rs:16:24
[00:01:59]    |
[00:01:59] 16 | use core::ops::{Index, RangeBounds};
[00:01:59]    |                        ^^^^^^^^^^^
[00:01:59]    |
[00:01:59]    = help: add #![feature(range_argument)] to the crate attributes to enable

Is this PR still a work in progress (per your original comment)?

clarfonthey · 2017-07-05T17:52:08Z

It is! I'll get back to this today or tomorrow.

bors · 2017-07-06T02:35:27Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #42727) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

brson · 2017-07-08T00:56:43Z

This needs to land, and backport, within a week or not at all. It is slated for stabilization on 7/20.

I am not crazy about making API changes at the last minute as this does. A rename - ok (sorta...), but changing how the API works seems unnecessarily risky.

The stabilization of this API is in this backport.

durka · 2017-07-08T03:38:39Z

I'm a bit confused about the API change, honestly. I see it was suggested #30877 (comment) but there wasn't much discussion. There was consensus around a rename though, but it seems weird to rush the other change -- and why would we backport it for a release before basically anyone has a chance to try it on nightly? Maybe there is more context that I missed?

durka · 2017-07-08T03:49:26Z

OK, I looked a little more closely at the situation.

We decided in the tracking issue to stabilize RangeArgument, and pretty much everyone agreed to change the name but nobody got around to doing it.
During FCP, @johncf suggested the "Into trick". Nobody picked it up at the time, indeed @Stebalien and @sfackler had gentle rebuttals, but @clarcharr adopted it for this PR.
Right after stabilization, @glaebhoerl complained about the naming.

This PR changes the name and implements the Into trick but does not stabilize anything. The backport stabilizes the API without either of those.

Based on that contradiction it seems to me that we haven't agreed on the design of this feature. Should we just revert the stabilization for now?

sfackler · 2017-07-08T04:59:54Z

Nothing related to this is being stabilized AFAIK.

clarfonthey · 2017-07-08T22:38:45Z

@brson I should clarify that this is absolutely not expected to stabilise soon. The intention was to offer an implementation of the Into version as a POC to make sure that people are okay with it, let the dust settle, then stabilise it. Right now I still have a bit of work to do making BTree*::range work as expected, but I do feel like this is a better way forward.

If the team would prefer to leave RangeArgument as it is and simply rename it for the sake of getting this stabilised quicker, I can modify this PR to do that.

liigo · 2017-07-11T09:46:55Z

@durka

Based on that contradiction it seems to me that we haven't agreed on the design of this feature. Should we just revert the stabilization for now?

I think so.

Mark-Simulacrum · 2017-07-17T00:47:16Z

So I'm not clear what the status of this is. I don't think we're backporting this to beta at this point (it's too late).

sfackler · 2017-07-19T22:48:50Z

There's no need to beta backport this - RangeArgument was un-stabilized.

This does seem like a reasonable way forward though. r=me with a rebase!

ollie27 · 2017-07-19T23:13:37Z

src/liballoc/lib.rs

 /// An intermediate trait for specialization of `Extend`.
 #[doc(hidden)]
 trait SpecExtend<I: IntoIterator> {
    /// Extends `self` with the contents of the given iterator.
    fn spec_extend(&mut self, iter: I);
 }

+#[rustc_deprecated(reason = "moved to core::ops", since = "1.19.0")]


This would need to be "1.21.0" now.

ollie27 · 2017-07-19T23:14:39Z

src/liballoc/range.rs

@@ -11,142 +11,7 @@
 #![unstable(feature = "collections_range",
            reason = "waiting for dust to settle on inclusive ranges",
            issue = "30877")]
+#![rustc_deprecated(reason = "moved to core::ops", since = "1.19.0")]


As this module only contained RangeArgument and that's been removed, this entire module can just be deleted along with its reexports in collections and std::collections.

alexcrichton · 2017-07-27T23:22:35Z

pign @clarcharr, just wanted to make sure this stayed on your radar

aidanhs · 2017-08-03T18:46:38Z

@clarcharr I'm going to close this to keep the queue clean, but if you manage to get back to this to rebase let us know and we'll reopen!

rust-highfive assigned BurntSushi Jul 3, 2017

clarfonthey force-pushed the range_bounds branch 4 times, most recently from 5e55907 to fbd095d Compare July 3, 2017 19:23

Change trait RangeArgument to struct RangeBounds.

fbd095d

aidanhs added the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Jul 5, 2017

brson added the beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jul 8, 2017

brson mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2017

Updated releases notes for 1.19 #42503

Closed

sfackler removed the beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jul 19, 2017

ollie27 reviewed Jul 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

aidanhs closed this Aug 3, 2017

liigo mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2017

relaunch RangeBounds #44518

Closed

dtolnay mentioned this pull request Sep 17, 2017

Tracking issue for RangeBounds #30877

Closed

clarfonthey deleted the range_bounds branch May 5, 2018 04:33

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Change trait RangeArgument to struct RangeBounds. #43033

Change trait RangeArgument to struct RangeBounds. #43033

clarfonthey commented Jul 3, 2017 •

edited

Loading

rust-highfive commented Jul 3, 2017

aidanhs commented Jul 5, 2017

clarfonthey commented Jul 5, 2017

bors commented Jul 6, 2017

brson commented Jul 8, 2017 •

edited

Loading

durka commented Jul 8, 2017 •

edited

Loading

durka commented Jul 8, 2017 •

edited

Loading

sfackler commented Jul 8, 2017

clarfonthey commented Jul 8, 2017

liigo commented Jul 11, 2017

Mark-Simulacrum commented Jul 17, 2017

sfackler commented Jul 19, 2017

ollie27 Jul 19, 2017

clarfonthey Jul 20, 2017

ollie27 Jul 19, 2017

clarfonthey Jul 20, 2017

alexcrichton commented Jul 27, 2017

aidanhs commented Aug 3, 2017

Change trait RangeArgument to struct RangeBounds. #43033

Change trait RangeArgument to struct RangeBounds. #43033

Conversation

clarfonthey commented Jul 3, 2017 • edited Loading

rust-highfive commented Jul 3, 2017

aidanhs commented Jul 5, 2017

clarfonthey commented Jul 5, 2017

bors commented Jul 6, 2017

brson commented Jul 8, 2017 • edited Loading

durka commented Jul 8, 2017 • edited Loading

durka commented Jul 8, 2017 • edited Loading

sfackler commented Jul 8, 2017

clarfonthey commented Jul 8, 2017

liigo commented Jul 11, 2017

Mark-Simulacrum commented Jul 17, 2017

sfackler commented Jul 19, 2017

ollie27 Jul 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

clarfonthey Jul 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ollie27 Jul 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

clarfonthey Jul 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexcrichton commented Jul 27, 2017

aidanhs commented Aug 3, 2017

clarfonthey commented Jul 3, 2017 •

edited

Loading

brson commented Jul 8, 2017 •

edited

Loading

durka commented Jul 8, 2017 •

edited

Loading

durka commented Jul 8, 2017 •

edited

Loading