Improve docs for Waker::noop and LocalWaker::noop
* Add a warning about a likely misuse. (See my commit message for longer rationale.)
* Apply some probably-accidentally-omitted changes to `LocalWaker`'s docs
* Add a comment about the clone-and-hack of the docs
I have used [semantic linefeeds](https://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2012/one-sentence-per-line/) for the docs formatting.
Stabilize `const_waker`
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102012.
For `local_waker` and `context_ext` related things, I just ~~moved them to dedicated feature gates and reused their own tracking issue (maybe it's better to open a new one later, but at least they should not be tracked under https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102012 from the beginning IMO.)~~ reused their own feature gates as suggested by ``@tgross35.``
``@rustbot`` label: +T-libs-api
r? libs-api
In 6f8a944ba4, titled
Change return type of unstable `Waker::noop()` from `Waker` to `&Waker`.
the summary line for Waker was changed:
- /// Creates a new `Waker` that does nothing when `wake` is called.
+ /// Returns a reference to a `Waker` that does nothing when used.
and the sentence about clone was added.
LocalWaker's docs were not changed, even though the types were, but
there is no explanation for why not. It seems like it was simply a
slip induced by the clone-and-hack.
Document overrides of `clone_from()` in core/std
As mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96979#discussion_r1379502413
Specifically, when an override doesn't just forward to an inner type, document the behavior and that it's preferred over simply assigning a clone of source. Also, change instances where the second parameter is "other" to "source".
I reused some of the wording over and over for similar impls, but I'm not sure that the wording is actually *good*. Would appreciate feedback about that.
Also, now some of these seem to provide pretty specific guarantees about behavior (e.g. will reuse the exact same allocation iff the len is the same), but I was basing it off of the docs for [`Box::clone_from`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.75.0/std/boxed/struct.Box.html#method.clone_from-1) - I'm not sure if providing those strong guarantees is actually good or not.
Specifically, when an override doesn't just forward to an inner type,
document the behavior and that it's preferred over simply assigning
a clone of source. Also, change instances where the second parameter is
"other" to "source".
Waker::will_wake: Compare vtable address instead of its content
Optimize will_wake implementation by comparing vtable address instead of its content.
The existing best practice to avoid false negatives from will_wake is to define a waker vtable as a static item. That approach continues to works with the new implementation.
While this potentially changes the observable behaviour, the function is documented to work on a best-effort basis. The PartialEq impl for RawWaker remains as it was.
Additional doc links and explanation of `Wake`.
This is intended to clarify:
* That `Wake` exists and can be used instead of `RawWaker`.
* How to construct a `Waker` when you are looking at `Wake` (which was previously only documented in the example).
This is intended to clarify:
* That `Wake` exists and can be used instead of `RawWaker`.
* How to construct a `Waker` when you are looking at `Wake`
(which was previously only documented in the example).
This also removes
* impl From<&Context> for ContextBuilder
* Context::try_waker()
The from implementation is removed because now that
wakers are always supported, there are less incentives
to override the current context. Before, the incentive
was to add Waker support to a reactor that didn't have
any.
The advantage of this is that it does not need to be assigned to a
variable to be used in a `Context` creation, which is the most common
thing to want to do with a noop waker.
If an owned noop waker is desired, it can be created by cloning, but the
reverse is harder. Alternatively, both versions could be provided, like
`futures::task::noop_waker()` and `futures::task::noop_waker_ref()`, but
that seems to me to be API clutter for a very small benefit, whereas
having the `&'static` reference available is a large benefit.
Previous discussion on the tracking issue starting here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98286#issuecomment-1862159766
Optimize will_wake implementation by comparing vtable address instead
of its content.
The existing best practice to avoid false negatives from will_wake is
to define a waker vtable as a static item. That approach continues to
works with the new implementation.
While this potentially changes the observable behaviour, the function is
documented to work on a best-effort basis. The PartialEq impl for
RawWaker remains as it was.
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
Add `task::Waker::noop`
I have found myself reimplementing this function many times when I need a `Context` but don't have a runtime or `futures` to hand.
Prior art: [`futures::task::noop_waker`](https://docs.rs/futures/0.3/futures/task/fn.noop_waker.html) and [`futures::task::noop_waker_ref`](https://docs.rs/futures/0.3/futures/task/fn.noop_waker_ref.html)
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98286
Unresolved questions:
1. Should we also add `RawWaker::noop()`? (I don't think so, I can't think of a use case for it)
2. Should we also add `Context::noop()`? Depending on the future direction `Context` goes a "noop context" might not even make sense in future.
3. Should it be an associated constant instead? That would allow for `let cx = &mut Context::from_waker(&Waker::NOOP);` to work on one line which is pretty nice. I don't really know what the guideline is here.
r? rust-lang/libs-api `@rustbot` label +T-libs-api -T-libs
