Stabilize some `ascii_ctype` methods
As discussed in #39658, this PR stabilizes those methods for `u8` and `char`. All inherent `ascii_ctype` for `[u8]` and `str` are removed as we prefer the more explicit version `s.chars().all(|c| c.is_ascii_())`.
This PR doesn't modify the `AsciiExt` trait. There, the `ascii_ctype` methods are still unstable. It is planned to remove those in the future (I think). I had to modify some code in `ascii.rs` to properly implement `AsciiExt` for all types.
Fixes#39658.
Copy all `AsciiExt` methods to the primitive types directly in order to deprecate it later
**EDIT:** [this PR is ready now](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/44042#issuecomment-333883548). I edited this post to reflect the current status of discussion, which is (apart from code review) pretty much settled.
---
This is my current progress in order to prepare stabilization of #39658. As discussed there (and in #39659), the idea is to deprecated `AsciiExt` and copy all methods to the type directly. Apparently there isn't really a reason to have those methods in an extension trait¹.
~~This is **work in progress**: copy&pasting code while slightly modifying the documentation isn't the most exciting thing to do. Therefore I wanted to already open this WIP PR after doing basically 1/4 of the job (copying methods to `&[u8]`, `char` and `&str` is still missing) to get some feedback before I continue. Some questions possibly worth discussing:~~
1. ~~Does everyone agree that deprecating `AsciiExt` is a good idea? Does everyone agree with the goal of this PR?~~ => apparently yes
2. ~~Are my changes OK so far? Did I do something wrong?~~
3. ~~The issue of the unstable-attribute is currently set to 0. I would wait until you say "Ok" to the whole thing, then create a tracking issue and then insert the correct issue id. Is that ok?~~
4. ~~I tweaked `eq_ignore_ascii_case()`: it now takes the argument `other: u8` instead of `other: &u8`. The latter was enforced by the trait. Since we're not bound to a trait anymore, we can drop the reference, ok?~~ => I reverted this, because the interface has to match the `AsciiExt` interface exactly.
¹ ~~Could it be that we can't write `impl [u8] {}`? This might be the reason for `AsciiExt`. If that is the case: is there a good reason we can't write such an impl block? What can we do instead?~~ => we couldn't at the time this PR was opened, but Simon made it possible.
/cc @SimonSapin @zackw
We don't want to stabilize them now already. The goal of this set of
commits is just to add inherent methods to the four types. Stabilizing
all of those methods can be done later.
Since the methods on u8 directly will shadow the AsciiExt methods,
we cannot change the signature without breaking everything. It
would have been nice to take `u8` as argument instead of `&u8`, but
we cannot break stuff! So this commit reverts it to the original
`&u8` version.
Those methods will shadow the methods of `AsciiExt`, so if we don't
make them insta-stable, everyone will hitting stability errors. It
is fine adding those as stable, because they are just being moved
around [according to sfackler][1].
OPEN QUESTION: this commit also stabilizes the `AsciiExt` methods
that were previously feature gated by the `ascii_ctype` feature.
Maybe we don't want to stablilize those yet.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/44042#issuecomment-329939279
This is the first step in order to deprecate AsciiExt. Since
this is a WIP commit, there is still some code duplication (notably
the static arrays) that will be removed later.
Add blanket TryFrom impl when From is implemented.
Adds `impl<T, U> TryFrom<T> for U where U: From<T>`.
Removes `impl<'a, T> TryFrom<&'a str> for T where T: FromStr` (originally added in #40281) due to overlapping impls caused by the new blanket impl. This removal is to be discussed further on the tracking issue for TryFrom.
Refs #33417.
/cc @sfackler, @scottmcm (thank you for the help!), and @aturon
Adds `impl<T, U> TryFrom<T> for U where U: From<T>`.
Removes `impl<'a, T> TryFrom<&'a str> for T where T: FromStr` due to
overlapping impls caused by the new blanket impl. This removal is to
be discussed further on the tracking issue for TryFrom.
Refs #33417.
Bump master to 1.21.0
This commit bumps the master branch's version to 1.21.0 and also updates the
bootstrap compiler from the freshly minted beta release.
improve the TryFrom implementations
This removes the need for a 128 bit storage by making use of the fact that there can be either no over/underflow, either one or both, and each time the target type suffices to hold the limit for comparison. This also means that the implementation will work in targets without 128bit support (unless it's for 128bit types, of course).
The downside is that the code looks a bit more complex.
This removes the need for a 128 bit storage by making use of the fact that
there can be either no over/underflow, either one or both, and each time
the target type suffices to hold the limit for comparison.
The downside is that the code looks a bit more complex.
This test code included in this commit is from @oyvindln 's PR. They also
greatly helped fixing a number of errors I made along the way. Thanks a lot!
This PR cuts down on a large number of `#[inline(always)]` and `#[inline]`
annotations in libcore for various core functions. The `#[inline(always)]`
annotation is almost never needed and is detrimental to debug build times as it
forces LLVM to perform inlining when it otherwise wouldn't need to in debug
builds. Additionally `#[inline]` is an unnecessary annoation on almost all
generic functions because the function will already be monomorphized into other
codegen units and otherwise rarely needs the extra "help" from us to tell LLVM
to inline something.
Overall this PR cut the compile time of a [microbenchmark][1] by 30% from 1s to
0.7s.
[1]: https://gist.github.com/alexcrichton/a7d70319a45aa60cf36a6a7bf540dd3a
Fix NaN handling in is_sign_negative/positive
This would be my proposed fix for the #42425 provided we decide it is indeed a problem.
Note this would technically be a breaking change to a stable API. We might want to consider deprecating these methods and adding new ones.
