-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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.
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
Fix linked list cursor names #2847
Fix linked list cursor names #2847
Conversation
Tabs render as 8 spaces on GitHub which is different from the standard Rust style (4 spaces).
These changes is where everyone seems to agree on. - peek -> peek_next - peek_before -> peek_prev - insert -> insert_after - insert_list -> splice_after - insert_list_before -> splice_before - split -> split_after
…usors The name "pop" was critized in the discussion thread but despite agreement it should be changed, no one did. This commit implements basically the suggestion by Amanieu (but `remove_current` instead of `remove`). There is some discussion however, over if there should be two methods (differing in what element is the current one after deletion). This should be discussed in the tracking issue before stabilizing the feature.
I thought that changes to names before stabilisation were usually done as part of the FCP process outside the RFC process. I mean, it makes sense to make this change to the RFC text once everything is stabilised, but otherwise, I'm not really sure if an RFC is needed here. |
My idea was to change it since it was still discussed in the RFC thread and seems like it was just an accident to not adjust the RFC in time. But I'm totally fine with adjusting the RFC later on (e.g. when stabilizing). |
I would like to make 2 additional changes:
|
Also I'm not a fan of the Suggestions (pick one):
|
From the implementation side, currently i am choosing the second choice. Since there's no mention of |
@LukasKalbertodt If you update your PR to include the latest naming changes from the implementation then we can just merge it straight away. |
@Amanieu Should fit the initial implementation API now. |
You forgot to change |
These are just the names of the initially implementation.
(Merged per Discord request) |
In the thread for RFC 2570, @Amanieu made a comment about better method names which everyone seemed to largely agree with. However, somehow it was forgotten to adjust the RFC. This PR fixes that. See the commit messages for more details.
There are some discussions about the exact API left. These can happen in the tracking issue. However, this change is probably a clear improvement over the current RFC. The RFC is also currently being implemented. CC @crlf0710