Clarify ambiguity in select_nth_unstable docs
Original docs for `select_nth_unstable` family of functions were ambiguous as to whether "the element at `index`" was the element at `index` before the function reordered the elements or after the function reordered the elements.
The most helpful change in this PR is to change the given examples to make this absolutely clear. Before, "the element at `index`" was the same value before and after the reordering, so it didn't help disambiguate the meaning. I've changed the example for `select_nth_unstable` and `select_nth_unstable_by` so that "the element at `index`" is different before and after the reordering, which clears up the ambiguity. The function `select_nth_unstable_by_key` already had an example that was unambiguous.
In an attempt to clear up the ambiguity from the get-go, I've added a bit of redundancy to the text. Now the docs refer to "the element at `index` *after the reordering*".
Use `assert_unchecked` instead of `assume` intrinsic in the standard library
Now that a public wrapper for the `assume` intrinsic exists, we can use it in the standard library.
CC #119131
Use `bool` instead of `PartiolOrd` as return value of the comparison closure in `{slice,Iteraotr}::is_sorted_by`
Changes the function signature of the closure given to `{slice,Iteraotr}::is_sorted_by` to return a `bool` instead of a `PartiolOrd` as suggested by the libs-api team here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53485#issuecomment-1766411980.
This means these functions now return true if the closure returns true for all the pairs of values.
Introduce split_at_checked and split_at_mut_checked methods to slices
types (including str) which are non-panicking versions of split_at and
split_at_mut respectively. This is analogous to get method being
non-panicking version of indexing.
Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
This PR does a few different things based around stabilizing `slice_first_last_chunk`. They are split up so this PR can be by-commit reviewed, I can move parts to a separate PR if desired.
This feature provides a very elegant API to extract arrays from either end of a slice, such as for parsing integers from binary data.
## Stabilize `slice_first_last_chunk`
ACP: https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/69
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774
This stabilizes the functionality from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111774:
```rust
impl [T] {
pub const fn first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<&[T; N]>;
pub fn last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<&mut [T; N]>;
pub const fn split_first_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T; N], &[T])>;
pub fn split_first_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T; N], &mut [T])>;
pub const fn split_last_chunk<const N: usize>(&self) -> Option<(&[T], &[T; N])>;
pub fn split_last_chunk_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> Option<(&mut [T], &mut [T; N])>;
}
```
Const stabilization is included for all non-mut methods, which are blocked on `const_mut_refs`. This change includes marking the trivial function `slice_split_at_unchecked` const-stable for internal use (but not fully stable).
## Remove `split_array` slice methods
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091
Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83233#pullrequestreview-780315524
This PR also removes the following unstable methods from the `split_array` feature, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90091:
```rust
impl<T> [T] {
pub fn split_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T; N], &[T]);
pub fn split_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T; N], &mut [T]);
pub fn rsplit_array_ref<const N: usize>(&self) -> (&[T], &[T; N]);
pub fn rsplit_array_mut<const N: usize>(&mut self) -> (&mut [T], &mut [T; N]);
}
```
This is done because discussion at #90091 and its implementation PR indicate a strong preference for nonpanicking APIs that return `Option`. The only difference between functions under the `split_array` and `slice_first_last_chunk` features is `Option` vs. panic, so remove the duplicates as part of this stabilization.
This does not affect the array methods from `split_array`. We will want to revisit these once `generic_const_exprs` is further along.
## Reverse order of return tuple for `split_last_chunk{,_mut}`
An unresolved question for #111774 is whether to return `(preceding_slice, last_chunk)` (`(&[T], &[T; N])`) or the reverse (`(&[T; N], &[T])`), from `split_last_chunk` and `split_last_chunk_mut`. It is currently implemented as `(last_chunk, preceding_slice)` which matches `split_last -> (&T, &[T])`. The first commit changes these to `(&[T], &[T; N])` for these reasons:
- More consistent with other splitting methods that return multiple values: `str::rsplit_once`, `slice::split_at{,_mut}`, `slice::align_to` all return tuples with the items in order
- More intuitive (arguably opinion, but it is consistent with other language elements like pattern matching `let [a, b, rest @ ..] ...`
- If we ever added a varidic way to obtain multiple chunks, it would likely return something in order: `.split_many_last::<(2, 4)>() -> (&[T], &[T; 2], &[T; 4])`
- It is the ordering used in the `rsplit_array` methods
I think the inconsistency with `split_last` could be acceptable in this case, since for `split_last` the scalar `&T` doesn't have any internal order to maintain with the other items.
## Unresolved questions
Do we want to reserve the same names on `[u8; N]` to avoid inference confusion? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117561#issuecomment-1793388647
---
`slice_first_last_chunk` has only been around since early 2023, but `split_array` has been around since 2021.
`@rustbot` label -T-libs +T-libs-api -T-libs +needs-fcp
cc `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval,` `@scottmcm` who raised this topic, `@clarfonthey` implementer of `slice_first_last_chunk` `@jethrogb` implementer of `split_array`
Zulip discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Stabilizing.20array-from-slice.20*something*.3FFixes: #111774
This stabilizes all methods under `slice_first_last_chunk`.
Additionally, it const stabilizes the non-mut functions and moves the `_mut`
functions under `const_slice_first_last_chunk`. These are blocked on
`const_mut_refs`.
As part of this change, `slice_split_at_unchecked` was marked const-stable for
internal use (but not fully stable).
A more efficient slice comparison implementation for T: !BytewiseEq
(This is a follow up PR on #113654)
This PR changes the implementation for `[T]` slice comparison when `T: !BytewiseEq`. The previous implementation using zip was not optimized properly by the compiler, which didn't leverage the fact that both length were equal. Performance improvements are for example 20% when testing that `[Some(0_u64); 4096].as_slice() == [Some(0_u64); 4096].as_slice()`.
Add ASCII whitespace trimming functions to `&str`
- Add `trim_ascii_start`, `trim_ascii_end`, and `trim_ascii` functions to `&str` for trimming ASCII whitespace
- Add `#[inline]` to `[u8]` `trim_ascii` functions
These functions are feature-gated by `#![feature(byte_slice_trim_ascii)]` #94035
Add `trim_ascii_start`, `trim_ascii_end`, and `trim_ascii` functions to
`&str` for trimming ASCII whitespace under the `byte_slice_trim_ascii`
feature gate.
Add `inline` to `[u8]` `trim_ascii` functions
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.
The functionality of these methods from `split_array` has been absorbed by the
`slice_first_last_chunk` feature. This only affects the methods on slices,
not those with the same name that are implemented on array types.
Also adjusts testing to reflect this change.
Clarify UB in `get_unchecked(_mut)`
Inspired by #116915, it was unclear to me what exactly "out-of-bounds index" means in `get_unchecked`.
One could [potentially](https://rust.godbolt.org/z/hxM764orW) interpret it that `get_unchecked` is just another way to write `offset`, but I think `get_unchecked(len)` is supposed to be UB even though `.offet(len)` is well-defined (as is `.get_unchecked(..len)`), so write that more directly in the docs.
**libs-api folks**: Can you confirm whether this is what you expect this to mean? And is the situation any different for `<*const [T]>::get_unchecked`?
Refactor the if/else checking on cmp::Ordering variants to a
"branchless" reassignment of left and right. This change results
in fewer branches and instructions.
These methods currently return `(last_chunk, preceding_slice)`, which matches
the existing `split_x` methods that remove one item.
Change these to instead return `(preceding_slice, last_chunk)` which matches
string split methods, should be more intuitive, and will allow for consistency
with methods that split more items.
