Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Stabilize Iterator::step_by #51320

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 10, 2018
Merged

Stabilize Iterator::step_by #51320

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 10, 2018

Conversation

tmccombs
Copy link
Contributor

@tmccombs tmccombs commented Jun 3, 2018

Fixes #27741

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @Kimundi

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jun 3, 2018
@kennytm kennytm added T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. labels Jun 3, 2018
@zslayton zslayton mentioned this pull request Jun 5, 2018
Closed
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

I'd really like to see this feature being stabilized as well.

cc @SimonSapin

@SimonSapin
Copy link
Contributor

r=me on the diff

@scottmcm Your comment at #27741 (comment) is not clear to me. Are you proposing to change the semantics Iterator::step_by? Are you opposed to stabilizing it with the current semantics? (That is, take this PR as-is.)

@SimonSapin
Copy link
Contributor

Also CC @rust-lang/libs

@scottmcm
Copy link
Member

scottmcm commented Jun 9, 2018

@SimonSapin Thanks for the ping! I think the design process for the method defined the right semantics -- (1..).step_by(2)giving 1, 3, 5, ... makes sense to me -- so I'm in favour of stabilizing as-is.

(The comment was about implementation awkwardness -- nth isn't a great fit for what StepBy needs -- but I'm confident that's surmountable within the existing semantics.)

@SimonSapin
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for confirming!

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 9, 2018

📌 Commit 72e17b8 has been approved by SimonSapin

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 9, 2018
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 10, 2018

⌛ Testing commit 72e17b8 with merge b4d836c...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2018
@bors
Auto merge of #51320 - tmccombs:step-by, r=SimonSapin
b4d836c 
Stabilize Iterator::step_by

Fixes #27741
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 10, 2018

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: SimonSapin
Pushing b4d836c to master...

@bors bors merged commit 72e17b8 into rust-lang:master Jun 10, 2018
@tmccombs tmccombs deleted the step-by branch August 16, 2018 06:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@Kimundi Kimundi

Labels
relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@tmccombs @rust-highfive @GuillaumeGomez @SimonSapin @scottmcm @bors @kennytm @Kimundi