Entry and_modify doc
This PR modifies the documentation for [HashMap](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/collections/struct.HashMap.html#) and [BTreeMap](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/collections/struct.BTreeMap.html#) by introducing examples for `and_modify`. `and_modify` is a function that tends to give more idiomatic rust code when dealing with these data structures -- yet it lacked examples and was hidden away. This PR adds that and addresses #98122.
I've made some choices which I tried to explain in my commits. This is my first time contributing to rust, so hopefully, I made the right choices.
Updated the btree's documentation to include two references to
add_modify.
The first is when the `Entry` API is mentioned at the beginning. With
the same reasoning as HashMap's documentation, I thought it would best
to keep `attack`, but show the `mana` example.
The second is with the `entry` function that is used for the `Entry`
API. The code example was a perfect use for `add_modify`, which is why
it was changed to reflect that.
Put a bound on collection misbehavior
As currently written, when a logic error occurs in a collection's trait parameters, this allows *completely arbitrary* misbehavior, so long as it does not cause undefined behavior in std. However, because the extent of misbehavior is not specified, it is allowed for *any* code in std to start misbehaving in arbitrary ways which are not formally UB; consider the theoretical example of a global which gets set on an observed logic error. Because the misbehavior is only bound by not resulting in UB from safe APIs and the crate-level encapsulation boundary of all of std, this makes writing user unsafe code that utilizes std theoretically impossible, as it now relies on undocumented QOI (quality of implementation) that unrelated parts of std cannot be caused to misbehave by a misuse of std::collections APIs.
In practice, this is a nonconcern, because std has reasonable QOI and an implementation that takes advantage of this freedom is essentially a malicious implementation and only compliant by the most langauage-lawyer reading of the documentation.
To close this hole, we just add a small clause to the existing logic error paragraph that ensures that any misbehavior is limited to the collection which observed the logic error, making it more plausible to prove the soundness of user unsafe code.
This is not meant to be formal; a formal refinement would likely need to mention that values derived from the collection can also misbehave after a logic error is observed, as well as define what it means to "observe" a logic error in the first place. This fix errs on the side of informality in order to close the hole without complicating a normal reading which can assume a reasonable nonmalicious QOI.
See also [discussion on IRLO][1].
[1]: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/using-std-collections-and-unsafe-anything-can-happen/16640
r? rust-lang/libs-api ```@rustbot``` label +T-libs-api -T-libs
This technically adds a new guarantee to the documentation, though I argue as written it's one already implicitly provided.
refactor: VecDeques Iter fields to private
Made the fields of VecDeque's Iter private by creating a Iter::new(...) function to create a new instance of Iter and migrating usage to use Iter::new(...).
As currently written, when a logic error occurs in a collection's trait
parameters, this allows *completely arbitrary* misbehavior, so long as
it does not cause undefined behavior in std. However, because the extent
of misbehavior is not specified, it is allowed for *any* code in std to
start misbehaving in arbitrary ways which are not formally UB; consider
the theoretical example of a global which gets set on an observed logic
error. Because the misbehavior is only bound by not resulting in UB from
safe APIs and the crate-level encapsulation boundary of all of std, this
makes writing user unsafe code that utilizes std theoretically
impossible, as it now relies on undocumented QOI that unrelated parts of
std cannot be caused to misbehave by a misuse of std::collections APIs.
In practice, this is a nonconcern, because std has reasonable QOI and an
implementation that takes advantage of this freedom is essentially a
malicious implementation and only compliant by the most langauage-lawyer
reading of the documentation.
To close this hole, we just add a small clause to the existing logic
error paragraph that ensures that any misbehavior is limited to the
collection which observed the logic error, making it more plausible to
prove the soundness of user unsafe code.
This is not meant to be formal; a formal refinement would likely need to
mention that values derived from the collection can also misbehave after a
logic error is observed, as well as define what it means to "observe" a
logic error in the first place. This fix errs on the side of informality
in order to close the hole without complicating a normal reading which
can assume a reasonable nonmalicious QOI.
See also [discussion on IRLO][1].
[1]: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/using-std-collections-and-unsafe-anything-can-happen/16640
This accomplishes two main goals:
- Make it clear who is responsible for prefix-freedom, including how they should do it
- Make it feasible for a `Hasher` that *doesn't* care about Hash-DoS resistance to get better performance by not hashing lengths
This does not change rustc-hash, since that's in an external crate, but that could potentially use it in future.
Classify BinaryHeap & LinkedList unit tests as such
All but one of these so-called integration test case are unit tests, just like btree's were (#75531). In addition, reunite the unit tests of linked_list that were split off during #23104 because they needed to remain unit tests (they were later moved to the separate file they are in during #63207). The two sets could remain separate files, but I opted to merge them back together, more or less in the order they used to be, apart from one duplicate name `test_split_off` and one duplicate tiny function `list_from`.
Fix some confusing wording and improve slice-search-related docs
This adds more links between `contains` and `binary_search` because I do think they have some relevant connections. If your (big) slice happens to be sorted and you know it, surely you should be using `[3; 100].binary_search(&5).is_ok()` over `[3; 100].contains(&5)`?
This also fixes the confusing "searches this sorted X" wording which just sounds really weird because it doesn't know whether it's actually sorted. It should be but it may not be. The new wording should make it clearer that you will probably want to sort it and in the same sentence it also mentions the related function `contains`.
Similarly, this mentions `binary_search` on `contains`' docs.
This also fixes some other minor stuff and inconsistencies.
[test] Add test cases for untested functions for VecDeque
Added test cases of the following functions
- get
- get_mut
- swap
- reserve_exact
- try_reserve_exact
- try_reserve
- contains
- rotate_left
- rotate_right
- binary_search
- binary_search_by
- binary_search_by_key
BTreeMap::entry: Avoid allocating if no insertion
This PR allows the `VacantEntry` to borrow from an empty tree with no root, and to lazily allocate a new root node when the user calls `.insert(value)`.
Made the fields of VecDeque's Iter private by creating a Iter::new(...) function to create a new instance of Iter and migrating usage to use Iter::new(...).
Improve doc wording for retain on some collections
I found the documentation wording on the various retain methods on many collections to be unusual.
I tried to invert the relation by switching `such that` with `for which` .
This updates the standard library's documentation to use the new syntax. The
documentation is worthwhile to update as it should be more idiomatic
(particularly for features like this, which are nice for users to get acquainted
with). The general codebase is likely more hassle than benefit to update: it'll
hurt git blame, and generally updates can be done by folks updating the code if
(and when) that makes things more readable with the new format.
A few places in the compiler and library code are updated (mostly just due to
already having been done when this commit was first authored).
fix typo in btree/vec doc: Self -> self
this pr fixes#92345
the documentation refers to the object the method is called for, not the type, so it should be using the lower case self.
Add documentation to more `From::from` implementations.
For users looking at documentation through IDE popups, this gives them relevant information rather than the generic trait documentation wording “Performs the conversion”. For users reading the documentation for a specific type for any reason, this informs them when the conversion may allocate or copy significant memory versus when it is always a move or cheap copy.
Notes on specific cases:
* The new documentation for `From<T> for T` explains that it is not a conversion at all.
* Also documented `impl<T, U> Into<U> for T where U: From<T>`, the other central blanket implementation of conversion.
* The new documentation for construction of maps and sets from arrays of keys mentions the handling of duplicates. Future work could be to do this for *all* code paths that convert an iterable to a map or set.
* I did not add documentation to conversions of a specific error type to a more general error type.
* I did not add documentation to unstable code.
This change was prepared by searching for the text "From<... for" and so may have missed some cases that for whatever reason did not match. I also looked for `Into` impls but did not find any worth documenting by the above criteria.
