Allow comparing Vecs with different allocators using ==
#93755
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
dtolnay
added
T-libs-api
dtolnay
approved these changes
Mar 18, 2022
|
@rust-lang/libs-api: Before:impl<T, U, A> PartialEq<Vec<U, A>> for Vec<T, A>
where
T: PartialEq<U>,
A: Allocator;After:impl<T, U, A1, A2> PartialEq<Vec<U, A2>> for Vec<T, A1>
where
T: PartialEq<U>,
A1: Allocator,
A2: Allocator; |
|
Team member @dtolnay 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. |
rfcbot
added
proposed-final-comment-period
|
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
rfcbot
added
final-comment-period
|
We should watch for any issues with this in the beta crater runs. I don't anticipate an issue either. |
dtolnay
approved these changes
Mar 28, 2022
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit ee23fd2 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 28, 2022
…s-with-different-allocators, r=dtolnay Allow comparing `Vec`s with different allocators using `==` See https://stackoverflow.com/q/71021633/7884305. I did not changed the `PartialOrd` impl too because it was not generic already (didn't support `Vec<T> <=> Vec<U> where T: PartialOrd<U>`). Does it needs tests? I don't think this will hurt type inference much because the default allocator is usually not inferred (`new()` specifies it directly, and even with other allocators, you pass the allocator to `new_in()` so the compiler usually knows the type). I think this requires FCP since the impls are already stable.
This was referenced Mar 28, 2022
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 28, 2022
Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#88375 (Clarify that ManuallyDrop<T> has same layout as T) - rust-lang#93755 (Allow comparing `Vec`s with different allocators using `==`) - rust-lang#95016 (Docs: make Vec::from_raw_parts documentation less strict) - rust-lang#95098 (impl From<&[T; N]> and From<&mut [T; N]> for Vec<T>) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
ChayimFriedman2
deleted the
allow-comparing-vecs-with-different-allocators
branch
rfcbot
added
finished-final-comment-period
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See https://stackoverflow.com/q/71021633/7884305.
I did not changed the
PartialOrdimpl too because it was not generic already (didn't supportVec<T> <=> Vec<U> where T: PartialOrd<U>).Does it needs tests?
I don't think this will hurt type inference much because the default allocator is usually not inferred (
new()specifies it directly, and even with other allocators, you pass the allocator tonew_in()so the compiler usually knows the type).I think this requires FCP since the impls are already stable.