implement PartialEq<VecDeque<U>> for Vec<T>, &[T], &mut [T], [T; N] and &mut [T; N] - #152972
implement PartialEq<VecDeque<U>> for Vec<T>, &[T], &mut [T], [T; N] and &mut [T; N]#152972iAeternus wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? @joboet rustbot has assigned @joboet. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
...who says "corrigendum"? This isn't an academics paper, this is a PR. Your PR's description should be as succinct as you can make it, and written by hand in your own words. See https://forge.rust-lang.org/how-to-start-contributing.html#etiquette |
|
This PR is already addressed by #149045 |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Wait, this isn't addressed by that, this is VecDeque not Vec. |
workingjubilee
added
T-libs-api
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
r? libs-api This will need an FCP.
Welcome! As it stands, the PR description is very bloated and reads like the LLM-generated robot-speak that it is (if you read it through, every information is repeated twice). That comes across as quite rude; after all, why should anyone spend time on your work if you didn't invest your? So please, write your contributions yourself. As far as I can tell from your profile, English isn't your first language (it isn't for me either). Using translation tools is completely fine, but please make sure that the generated output is close to what you had originally written. Try prompting the LLM to keep that in mind – context matters, even and especially for mindless stochastic parrots. And in the end, even the most nuanced prompt cannot and should not replace a manual review of the output. @rustbot author |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use |
Thank you for your suggestion. I have rewritten the PR description. From now on, I will describe the PR in my own words. |
iAeternus
changed the title
|
@rustbot ready |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Starting a crater run to check if this breaks type inference in the ecosystem. @bors try |
|
@iAeternus: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users |
|
How can I move this PR forward? |
clarfonthey
added
T-libs
…, r=Mark-Simulacrum feat: add symmetric PartialEq impls for Vec, &[T], &mut [T] versus Cow<'_, [T]> add the missing reverse `PartialEq<Cow<'_, [U]>>` impls for `Vec<T, A>`, `&[T]`, and `&mut [T]`, essentially mirroring the existing forwards in `library/alloc/src/vec/partial_eq.rs` partially addresses rust-lang#152830. The `VecDeque` half of that issue is being handled separately by rust-lang#152972, so there is no overlap with this PR also fyi: verified locally with `./x test library/alloctests --stage 1` and the new `test_partial_eq_cow_symmetric` test passes alongside the existing alloc test suite
…, r=Mark-Simulacrum feat: add symmetric PartialEq impls for Vec, &[T], &mut [T] versus Cow<'_, [T]> add the missing reverse `PartialEq<Cow<'_, [U]>>` impls for `Vec<T, A>`, `&[T]`, and `&mut [T]`, essentially mirroring the existing forwards in `library/alloc/src/vec/partial_eq.rs` partially addresses rust-lang#152830. The `VecDeque` half of that issue is being handled separately by rust-lang#152972, so there is no overlap with this PR also fyi: verified locally with `./x test library/alloctests --stage 1` and the new `test_partial_eq_cow_symmetric` test passes alongside the existing alloc test suite
…, r=Mark-Simulacrum feat: add symmetric PartialEq impls for Vec, &[T], &mut [T] versus Cow<'_, [T]> add the missing reverse `PartialEq<Cow<'_, [U]>>` impls for `Vec<T, A>`, `&[T]`, and `&mut [T]`, essentially mirroring the existing forwards in `library/alloc/src/vec/partial_eq.rs` partially addresses rust-lang#152830. The `VecDeque` half of that issue is being handled separately by rust-lang#152972, so there is no overlap with this PR also fyi: verified locally with `./x test library/alloctests --stage 1` and the new `test_partial_eq_cow_symmetric` test passes alongside the existing alloc test suite
…, r=Mark-Simulacrum feat: add symmetric PartialEq impls for Vec, &[T], &mut [T] versus Cow<'_, [T]> add the missing reverse `PartialEq<Cow<'_, [U]>>` impls for `Vec<T, A>`, `&[T]`, and `&mut [T]`, essentially mirroring the existing forwards in `library/alloc/src/vec/partial_eq.rs` partially addresses rust-lang#152830. The `VecDeque` half of that issue is being handled separately by rust-lang#152972, so there is no overlap with this PR also fyi: verified locally with `./x test library/alloctests --stage 1` and the new `test_partial_eq_cow_symmetric` test passes alongside the existing alloc test suite
…, r=Mark-Simulacrum feat: add symmetric PartialEq impls for Vec, &[T], &mut [T] versus Cow<'_, [T]> add the missing reverse `PartialEq<Cow<'_, [U]>>` impls for `Vec<T, A>`, `&[T]`, and `&mut [T]`, essentially mirroring the existing forwards in `library/alloc/src/vec/partial_eq.rs` partially addresses rust-lang#152830. The `VecDeque` half of that issue is being handled separately by rust-lang#152972, so there is no overlap with this PR also fyi: verified locally with `./x test library/alloctests --stage 1` and the new `test_partial_eq_cow_symmetric` test passes alongside the existing alloc test suite
Rollup merge of #156160 - kx0101:cow-vec-symmetric-partialeq, r=Mark-Simulacrum feat: add symmetric PartialEq impls for Vec, &[T], &mut [T] versus Cow<'_, [T]> add the missing reverse `PartialEq<Cow<'_, [U]>>` impls for `Vec<T, A>`, `&[T]`, and `&mut [T]`, essentially mirroring the existing forwards in `library/alloc/src/vec/partial_eq.rs` partially addresses #152830. The `VecDeque` half of that issue is being handled separately by #152972, so there is no overlap with this PR also fyi: verified locally with `./x test library/alloctests --stage 1` and the new `test_partial_eq_cow_symmetric` test passes alongside the existing alloc test suite
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #161566) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing. |
…Simulacrum feat: add symmetric PartialEq impls for Vec, &[T], &mut [T] versus Cow<'_, [T]> add the missing reverse `PartialEq<Cow<'_, [U]>>` impls for `Vec<T, A>`, `&[T]`, and `&mut [T]`, essentially mirroring the existing forwards in `library/alloc/src/vec/partial_eq.rs` partially addresses rust-lang/rust#152830. The `VecDeque` half of that issue is being handled separately by rust-lang/rust#152972, so there is no overlap with this PR also fyi: verified locally with `./x test library/alloctests --stage 1` and the new `test_partial_eq_cow_symmetric` test passes alongside the existing alloc test suite
7 participants
This PR is a response to #152830. It implement PartialEq<VecDeque> for Vec, &[T], &mut [T], [T; N] and &mut [T; N]. To be symmetrical with the standard library's __impl_slice_eq1, I added the __impl_slice_eq2 macro to generate the implementation. Additionally, I added the reverse equality unit test (test_partial_eq_vecdeque_reverse), modified too_generic_eval_ice.current.stderr, and passed the local tests.
This PR does not involve the comparison between Cow vs Vec and Cow vs &mut [T].
PS:
This is my first time participating in this project. If there are any mistakes, please feel free to correct me.