I am trying to add an implementation of `bitor` for `BTreeSet`. I think I am most of the way there, but I am going to need some guidance to take it all the way.
When I run `make check`, I get:
```
error: cannot move out of dereference of `&`-pointer
self.union(_rhs).map(|&i| i).collect::<BTreeSet<T>>()
^~
```
I'd appreciate any nudges in the right direction. If I can figure this one out, I am sure I will be able to implement `bitand`, `bitxor`, and `sub` as well.
/cc @Gankro
---
**Update**
I have added implementations for `BitOr`, `BitAnd`, `BitXor`, and `Sub` for `BTreeSet`.
Add initial attempt at implementing BitOr for BTreeSet.
Update the implementation of the bitor operator for BTreeSets.
`make check` ran fine through this.
Add implementations for BitAnd, BitXor, and Sub as well.
Remove the FIXME comment and add unstable flags.
Add doctests for the bitop functions.
I'm interested in including doctests for `BTreeMap`'s `iter_mut` and `into_iter` methods in this PR as well, but I am not sure of the best way to demonstrate/test what they do for the doctests.
Now that we have an overloaded comparison (`==`) operator, and that `Vec`/`String` deref to `[T]`/`str` on method calls, many `as_slice()`/`as_mut_slice()`/`to_string()` calls have become redundant. This patch removes them. These were the most common patterns:
- `assert_eq(test_output.as_slice(), "ground truth")` -> `assert_eq(test_output, "ground truth")`
- `assert_eq(test_output, "ground truth".to_string())` -> `assert_eq(test_output, "ground truth")`
- `vec.as_mut_slice().sort()` -> `vec.sort()`
- `vec.as_slice().slice(from, to)` -> `vec.slice(from_to)`
---
Note that e.g. `a_string.push_str(b_string.as_slice())` has been left untouched in this PR, since we first need to settle down whether we want to favor the `&*b_string` or the `b_string[]` notation.
This is rebased on top of #19167
cc @alexcrichton @aturon
Add a rustdoc test for union to exhibit how it is used.
There is already a test for union in the test namespace, but this commit
adds a doctest that will appear in the rustdocs.
Add a doctest for the difference function.
Add a doctest for the symmetric_difference function.
Add a doctest for the intersection function.
Update the union et al. doctests based on @Gankro's comments.
Make the union et al. doctests a bit more readable.
This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as
their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to
refer to the new locations:
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
=>
```
pub use self::Foo::{A, B};
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
or
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = Foo::A;
}
```
[breaking-change]
* Renames/deprecates the simplest and most obvious methods
* Adds FIXME(conventions)s for outstanding work
* Marks "handled" methods as unstable
NOTE: the semantics of reserve and reserve_exact have changed!
Other methods have had their semantics changed as well, but in a
way that should obviously not typecheck if used incorrectly.
Lots of work and breakage to come, but this handles most of the core
APIs and most eggregious breakage. Future changes should *mostly* focus on
niche collections, APIs, or simply back-compat additions.
[breaking-change]
* Moves multi-collection files into their own directory, and splits them into seperate files
* Changes exports so that each collection has its own module
* Adds underscores to public modules and filenames to match standard naming conventions
(that is, treemap::{TreeMap, TreeSet} => tree_map::TreeMap, tree_set::TreeSet)
* Renames PriorityQueue to BinaryHeap
* Renames SmallIntMap to VecMap
* Miscellanious fallout fixes
[breaking-change]
As part of the collections reform RFC, this commit removes all collections
traits in favor of inherent methods on collections themselves. All methods
should continue to be available on all collections.
This is a breaking change with all of the collections traits being removed and
no longer being in the prelude. In order to update old code you should move the
trait implementations to inherent implementations directly on the type itself.
Note that some traits had default methods which will also need to be implemented
to maintain backwards compatibility.
[breaking-change]
cc #18424
This commit enables implementations of IndexMut for a number of collections,
including Vec, RingBuf, SmallIntMap, TrieMap, TreeMap, and HashMap. At the same
time this deprecates the `get_mut` methods on vectors in favor of using the
indexing notation.
cc #18424
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221
The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when
writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the
possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot
because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak
of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other
circumlocutions.
Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when
operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate
out a section describing the "Err-producing" case.
We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as
an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology
accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe.
To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead.
Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this
will work on UNIX based systems:
grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g'
You can of course also do this by hand.
[breaking-change]
I previously avoided `#[inline]`ing anything assuming someone would come in and explain to me where this would be appropriate. Apparently no one *really* knows, so I'll just go the opposite way an inline everything assuming someone will come in and yell at me that such-and-such shouldn't be `#[inline]`.
==================
For posterity, iteration comparisons:
```
test btree::map::bench::iter_20 ... bench: 971 ns/iter (+/- 30)
test btree::map::bench::iter_1000 ... bench: 29445 ns/iter (+/- 480)
test btree::map::bench::iter_100000 ... bench: 2929035 ns/iter (+/- 21551)
test treemap::bench::iter_20 ... bench: 530 ns/iter (+/- 66)
test treemap::bench::iter_1000 ... bench: 26287 ns/iter (+/- 825)
test treemap::bench::iter_100000 ... bench: 7650084 ns/iter (+/- 356711)
test trie::bench_map::iter_20 ... bench: 646 ns/iter (+/- 265)
test trie::bench_map::iter_1000 ... bench: 43556 ns/iter (+/- 5014)
test trie::bench_map::iter_100000 ... bench: 12988002 ns/iter (+/- 139676)
```
As you can see `btree` "scales" much better than `treemap`. `triemap` scales quite poorly.
Note that *completely* different results are given if the elements are inserted in order from the range [0, size]. In particular, TrieMap *completely* dominates in the sorted case. This suggests adding benches for both might be worthwhile. However unsorted is *probably* the more "normal" case, so I consider this "good enough" for now.
Replaces BTree with BTreeMap and BTreeSet, which are completely new implementations.
BTreeMap's internal Node representation is particularly inefficient at the moment to
make this first implementation easy to reason about and fairly safe. Both collections
are also currently missing some of the tooling specific to sorted collections, which
is planned as future work pending reform of these APIs. General implementation issues
are discussed with TODOs internally
Perf results on x86_64 Linux:
test treemap::bench::find_rand_100 ... bench: 76 ns/iter (+/- 4)
test treemap::bench::find_rand_10_000 ... bench: 163 ns/iter (+/- 6)
test treemap::bench::find_seq_100 ... bench: 77 ns/iter (+/- 3)
test treemap::bench::find_seq_10_000 ... bench: 115 ns/iter (+/- 1)
test treemap::bench::insert_rand_100 ... bench: 111 ns/iter (+/- 1)
test treemap::bench::insert_rand_10_000 ... bench: 996 ns/iter (+/- 18)
test treemap::bench::insert_seq_100 ... bench: 486 ns/iter (+/- 20)
test treemap::bench::insert_seq_10_000 ... bench: 800 ns/iter (+/- 15)
test btree::map::bench::find_rand_100 ... bench: 74 ns/iter (+/- 4)
test btree::map::bench::find_rand_10_000 ... bench: 153 ns/iter (+/- 5)
test btree::map::bench::find_seq_100 ... bench: 82 ns/iter (+/- 1)
test btree::map::bench::find_seq_10_000 ... bench: 108 ns/iter (+/- 0)
test btree::map::bench::insert_rand_100 ... bench: 220 ns/iter (+/- 1)
test btree::map::bench::insert_rand_10_000 ... bench: 620 ns/iter (+/- 16)
test btree::map::bench::insert_seq_100 ... bench: 411 ns/iter (+/- 12)
test btree::map::bench::insert_seq_10_000 ... bench: 534 ns/iter (+/- 14)
BTreeMap still has a lot of room for optimization, but it's already beating out TreeMap on most access patterns.
[breaking-change]
