Remove unused peekable operations from swayfmt

[eureka-cpu]

Closes #2496

[eureka-cpu]

@mitchmindtree hmm, I know this change was at your request initially but clippy seems to think we should use a for loop 🤔

[mitchmindtree]

@mitchmindtree hmm, I know this change was at your request initially but clippy seems to think we should use a for loop thinking

Ahh, clippy is likely complaining as we're no longer using peak. Are you sure this PR keeps the semantics we're after?

Previously in these loops we were:

1. Cloning the iterator.
2. Using the cloned iterator to iterate over the elements.
3. Calling peak on the old iterator, which meant that only the first element was ever peaked.

The reason I suggested checking if we should be using while let is that step 3 looked suspicious to me. I.e. if we're using peak, the intention was likely to always peak the next element and not repeatedly peak the first element. Does that sound correct?

[eureka-cpu]

@mitchmindtree hmm, I know this change was at your request initially but clippy seems to think we should use a for loop thinking

Ahh, clippy is likely complaining as we're no longer using peak. Are you sure this PR keeps the semantics we're after?

Previously in these loops we were:

1. Cloning the iterator.

2. Using the cloned iterator to iterate over the elements.

3. Calling `peak` on the **old** iterator, which meant that _only the first element was ever peaked_.

The reason I suggested checking if we should be using while let is that step 3 looked suspicious to me. I.e. if we're using peak, the intention was likely to always peak the next element and not repeatedly peak the first element. Does that sound correct?

I think I see now, I'll take another look tomorrow morning

[eureka-cpu]

@mitchmindtree is there a reason we wouldn't want to consume the iterator here? Looking again, I removed the .peek() because it removes the last newline which we actually want to keep. Adding the .peek() back in feels sort of redundant because when there isn't another field, we still want to add another newline and comma.

[eureka-cpu]

@mitchmindtree is there a reason we wouldn't want to consume the iterator here? Looking again, I removed the .peek() because it removes the last newline which we actually want to keep. Adding the .peek() back in feels sort of redundant because when there isn't another field, we still want to add another newline and comma.

I went ahead and removed .peekable() from enum, maybe this is the right direction?

[mitchmindtree]

Ahhhh in that case, if there's no need for peek, we can switch back to consuming the iterator with for 👍

[eightfilms]

LGTM once the warning is ignored

[kayagokalp]