Use ExactSize::len() and defer to its decisions about overly defensive
assertions. Remove the length double-check and simply put a failure
case if the Zip finds an uneven end in .next_back().
Fixing this up since I think I wrote this, and it's been known to
confuse rusties (PR#15886).
Fixes#12118.
(I sneaked in an unrelated one-character whitespace fix I spotted while reviewing some benchmarks, if that is not okay, I can create a separate pull request for that.)
I don't know if anything else was relying on the old behavior, this seems more correct.
Fixes#16348
If '-F' is allowed to have an optional argument, with the previous version '-FF' would be translated to '-F -F'. In this new version '-FF' translates to '-F' with argument 'F'
Previously, `PrettyEncoder` indented a magic constant of 2 spaces per level, which may be fine for most uses but in my use case I would like to allow the user to specify the indent step for the outputted JSON in my program.
This is small change that does not break any existing code whatsoever, and does not change the behavior of existing uses. `PrettyEncoder::new()` still uses the default of 2.
I couldn't think of any simple tests for this change. The obvious one would be to check the outputted JSON for the correct number of spaces per indent level, but I think that would be more complex than the actual change itself and test little besides correctness and consistency, which can be verified visually. There's already a test for correct parsing of pretty-printed JSON that should still pass with this change.
Pros:
I like this example because it's concise without being trivial. The Monty Hall example code is somewhat lengthy and possibly inaccessible to those unfamiliar with probability.
Cons:
The Monty Hall example already exists. Do we need another example? Also, this is probably inaccessible to people who don't know basic geometry.
int/uint aren't considered FFI safe, replace them with the actual type they
represent (i64/u64 or i32/u32). This is a breaking change, but at most a cast
to `uint` or `int` needs to be added.
[breaking-change]
As of RFC 18, struct layout is undefined. Opting into a C-compatible struct
layout is now down with #[repr(C)]. For consistency, specifying a packed
layout is now also down with #[repr(packed)]. Both can be specified.
To fix errors caused by this, just add #[repr(C)] to the structs, and change
#[packed] to #[repr(packed)]
Closes#14309
[breaking-change]
The last two sections of the guide, and a small conclusion. I suck at conclusions.
I also realized I never covered strings, so I'm going to put that section up before we're actually 'done.'
root
bors
Patrick Walton
Luqman Aden
Austin Bonander
Corey Richardson
Steve Klabnik
Vinzent Steinberg
Valerii Hiora
nham
Christoph Burgdorf