stabilize `Peekable::next_if_map` (`#![feature(peekable_next_if_map)]`)
# Stabilization report
## Summary
`#![feature(peekable_next_if_map)]` is a variation of `next_if` on peekable iterators that can transform the peeked item. This creates a way to take ownership of the next item in an iterator when some condition holds, but put the item back when the condition doesn't hold. This pattern would otherwise have needed unwraps in many cases.
[Tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143702)
### What is stabilized
```rust
impl<I: Iterator> Peekable<I> {
pub fn next_if_map<R>(
&mut self,
f: impl FnOnce(I::Item) -> Result<R, I::Item>,
) -> Option<R> {
..
}
pub fn next_if_map_mut<R>(
&mut self,
f: impl FnOnce(&mut I::Item) -> Option<R>,
) -> Option<R> {
..
}
}
```
Example usage adapted from the ACP:
```rust
let mut it = Peekable::new("123".chars());
while let Some(digit) = it.next_if_map(|c| c.to_digit(10).ok_or(c)) {
codepoint = codepoint * 10 + digit;
}
```
or with `next_if_map_mut`:
```rust
let mut it = Peekable::new("123".chars());
while let Some(digit) = iter.next_if_map_mut(|c| c.to_digit(10)) {
line_num = line_num * 10 + digit;
}
```
Note that the major difference here is that `next_if_map_mut` does not get owned items from the iterator, but mutable references. With that api, the closure can return an `Option` which avoids an `ok_or`. This may require cloning or copying the iterator elements, so if that is expensive, the owned version, `next_if_map`, may be preferable.
### Nightly use
At the moment, this feature is barely used in nightly, though I've found multiple good uses for it in my own projects, hence my pushing for stabilization. It makes the kind of patterns used in recursive descent parsing super concise and maybe with its stabilization it will find more use.
### Test coverage
Besides a quite comprehensive doctest, this feature is tested (including panicking in the closure) here:
c880acdd31/library/coretests/tests/iter/adapters/peekable.rs (L275-L359)
## History
- ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/613 accepted with https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/613#issuecomment-3049844223
- implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143725 with tests, and no issues reported since july.
## Acknowledgments
ACP, implementation and tracking issue for this feature all by @kennytm <3
Stabilize `maybe_uninit_write_slice`
Stabilize feature `maybe_uninit_write_slice` (closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79995).
Note that this also const-stabilizes `<[MaybeUninit<_>]>::write_copy_of_slice`. That method depends on `<[_]>::copy_from_slice`, which is already const-stable, and `<[MaybeUninit<_>]>::assume_init_mut` which is now also stable.
This PR reverts RUST-147622 for several reasons:
1. The RUST-147622 PR would format the generated core library code using
an arbitrary `rustfmt` picked up from `PATH`, which will cause
hard-to-debug failures when the `rustfmt` used to format the
generated unicode data code versus the `rustfmt` used to format the
in-tree library code.
2. Previously, the `unicode-table-generator` tests were not run under CI
as part of `coretests`, and since for `x86_64-gnu-aux` job we run
library `coretests` with `miri`, the generated tests unfortunately
caused an unacceptably large Merge CI time regression from ~2 hours
to ~3.5 hours, making it the slowest Merge CI job (and thus the new
bottleneck).
3. This PR also has an unintended effect of causing a diagnostic
regression (RUST-148387), though that's mostly an edge case not
properly handled by `rustc` diagnostics.
Given that these are three distinct causes with non-trivial fixes, I'm
proposing to revert this PR to return us to baseline. This is not
prejudice against relanding the changes with these issues addressed, but
to alleviate time pressure to address these non-trivial issues.
`unicode_data` refactors
Minor refactors to `unicode_data` that occured to me while trying to reduce the size of the tables. Splitting into a separate PR. NFC
Instead of generating a standalone executable to test `unicode_data`,
generate normal tests in `coretests`. This ensures tests are always
generated, and will be run as part of the normal testsuite.
Also change the generated tests to loop over lookup tables, rather than
generating a separate `assert_eq!()` statement for every codepoint. The
old approach produced a massive (20,000 lines plus) file which took
minutes to compile!
Implement Integer funnel shifts
Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#145686
ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/642
This implements funnel shifts on primitive integer types. Implements this for cg_llvm, with a fallback impl for everything else
Thanks `@folkertdev` for the fixes and tests
cc `@rust-lang/libs-api`
Constify conversion traits (part 1)
This is the first part of rust-lang/rust#144289 being split into smaller pieces. It adds/moves constness of several traits under the `const_convert` feature:
* `From`
* `Into`
* `TryFrom`
* `TryInto`
* `FromStr`
* `AsRef`
* `AsMut`
* `Borrow`
* `BorrowMut`
* `Deref`
* `DerefMut`
There are a few methods that are intrinsically tied to these traits which I've included in the feature. Particularly, those which are wrappers over `AsRef`:
* `ByteStr::new` (unstable under `bstr` feature)
* `OsStr::new`
* `Path::new`
Those which directly use `Into`:
* `Result::into_ok`
* `Result::into_err`
And those which use `Deref` and `DerefMut`:
* `Pin::as_ref`
* `Pin::as_mut`
* `Pin::as_deref_mut`
* `Option::as_deref`
* `Option::as_deref_mut`
* `Result::as_deref`
* `Result::as_deref_mut`
(note: the `Option` and `Result` methods were suggested by ``@npmccallum`` initially as rust-lang/rust#146101)
The parts which are missing from this PR are:
* Anything that involves heap-allocated types
* Making any method const than the ones listed above
* Anything that could rely on the above, *or* could rely on system-specific code for `OsStr` or `Path` (note: this mostly makes these methods useless since `str` doesn't implement `AsRef<OsStr>` yet, but it's better to track the method for now and add impls later, IMHO)
r? ``@tgross35`` (who mostly already reviewed this)
