Updated the HashMap's documentation to include two references to
add_modify.
The first is when the `Entry` API is mentioned at the beginning. I was
hesitant to change the "attack" example (although I believe that it is
perfect example of where `add_modify` should be used) because both uses
work equally, but one is more idiomatic (`add_modify`).
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.
Tweak insert docs
For `{Hash, BTree}Map::insert`, I always have to take a few extra seconds to think about the slight weirdness about the fact that if we "did not" insert (which "sounds" false), we return true, and if we "did" insert, (which "sounds" true), we return false.
This tweaks the doc comments for the `insert` methods of those types (as well as what looks like a rustc internal data structure that I found just by searching the codebase for "If the set did") to first use the "Returns whether _something_" pattern used in e.g. `remove`, where we say that `remove` "returns whether the value was present".
Expose `get_many_mut` and `get_many_unchecked_mut` to HashMap
This pull-request expose the function [`get_many_mut`](https://docs.rs/hashbrown/0.12.0/hashbrown/struct.HashMap.html#method.get_many_mut) and [`get_many_unchecked_mut`](https://docs.rs/hashbrown/0.12.0/hashbrown/struct.HashMap.html#method.get_many_unchecked_mut) from `hashbrown` to the standard library `HashMap` type. They obviously keep the same API and are added under the (new) `map_many_mut` feature.
- `get_many_mut`: Attempts to get mutable references to `N` values in the map at once.
- `get_many_unchecked_mut`: Attempts to get mutable references to `N` values in the map at once, without validating that the values are unique.
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
It is not obvious (at least for me) that complexity of iteration over hash tables depends on capacity and not length. Especially comparing with other containers like Vec or String. I think, this behaviour is worth mentioning.
I run benchmark which tests iteration time for maps with length 50 and different capacities and get this results:
```
capacity - time
64 - 203.87 ns
256 - 351.78 ns
1024 - 607.87 ns
4096 - 965.82 ns
16384 - 3.1188 us
```
If you want to dig why it behaves such way, you can look current implementation in [hashbrown code](f3a9f211d0/src/raw/mod.rs (L1933)).
Benchmarks code would be presented in PR related to this commit.
Remove `#[rustc_deprecated]`
This removes `#[rustc_deprecated]` and introduces diagnostics to help users to the right direction (that being `#[deprecated]`). All uses of `#[rustc_deprecated]` have been converted. CI is expected to fail initially; this requires #95958, which includes converting `stdarch`.
I plan on following up in a short while (maybe a bootstrap cycle?) removing the diagnostics, as they're only intended to be short-term.
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.
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).
Remove unnecessary bounds for some Hash{Map,Set} methods
This PR moves `HashMap::{into_keys,into_values,retain}` and `HashSet::retain` from `impl` blocks with `K: Eq + Hash, S: BuildHasher` into the blocks without them. It doesn't seem to me there is any reason these methods need to be bounded by that. This change brings `HashMap::{into_keys,into_values}` on par with `HashMap::{keys,values,values_mut}` which are not bounded either.
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #91668 (Remove the match on `ErrorKind::Other`)
- #91678 (Add tests fixed by #90023)
- #91679 (Move core/stream/stream/mod.rs to core/stream/stream.rs)
- #91681 (fix typo in `intrinsics::raw_eq` docs)
- #91686 (Fix `Vec::reserve_exact` documentation)
- #91697 (Delete Utf8Lossy::from_str)
- #91706 (Add unstable book entries for parts of asm that are not being stabilized)
- #91709 (Replace iterator-based set construction by *Set::From<[T; N]>)
- #91716 (Improve x.py logging and defaults a bit more)
- #91747 (Add pierwill to .mailmap)
- #91755 (Fix since attribute for const_linked_list_new feature)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Update documentation to use `from()` to initialize `HashMap`s and `BTreeMap`s
As of Rust 1.56, `HashMap` and `BTreeMap` both have associated `from()` functions. I think using these in the documentation cleans things up a bit. It allows us to remove some of the `mut`s and avoids the Initialize-Then-Modify anti-pattern.
Add #[must_use] to expensive computations
The unifying theme for this commit is weak, admittedly. I put together a list of "expensive" functions when I originally proposed this whole effort, but nobody's cared about that criterion. Still, it's a decent way to bite off a not-too-big chunk of work.
Given the grab bag nature of this commit, the messages I used vary quite a bit. I'm open to wording changes.
For some reason clippy flagged four `BTreeSet` methods but didn't say boo about equivalent ones on `HashSet`. I stared at them for a while but I can't figure out the difference so I added the `HashSet` ones in.
```rust
// Flagged by clippy.
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> Difference<'a, T>;
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn symmetric_difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> SymmetricDifference<'a, T>
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn intersection<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> Intersection<'a, T>;
alloc::collections::btree_set::BTreeSet<T> fn union<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a BTreeSet<T>) -> Union<'a, T>;
// Ignored by clippy, but not by me.
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> Difference<'a, T, S>;
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn symmetric_difference<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> SymmetricDifference<'a, T, S>
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn intersection<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> Intersection<'a, T, S>;
std::collections::HashSet<T, S> fn union<'a>(&'a self, other: &'a HashSet<T, S>) -> Union<'a, T, S>;
```
Parent issue: #89692
r? ```@joshtriplett```
Previously, it wasn't clear whether "This could include" was referring
to logic errors, or undefined behaviour. Tweak wording to clarify this
sentence does not relate to UB.
