-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
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
Make hashmap iterators implement ExactSize #19327
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hashmap is fundamentally unordered. Semantically, what does it even mean to iterate backwards? Couldn't this just call
next
and call it a day? Or am I missing a usecase?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it'd be surprising if forward iteration and backward iteration returned the same series of elements. Anyhow, I only implemented DoubleEndedIterator because it's needed for
ExactSize
for some reason.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I'm fine with impl'ing DoubleEnded and ExactSize for usability with that tooling. I don't however think people should be able to rely on the order of elements when you call next/next_back between iterations. I think it's fine to have next_back be a synonym for next here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that would go against the spirit of
DoubleEndedIterator
. We should at least be doing something "backwards-ish" or at least as backwards as makes sense for a hashtable. People might have a usecase for it and I feel like we shouldn't just lie in the interface.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can see the argument either way, honestly. Plus we can explicitly document that behaviour can't be relied on for different sequences of next/next_back. Which is backwards-compatible to "undo". I'm not a huge fan of duplicating a bunch on unsafe code in the already-beefy rawtable. Making next=next_back seems like a simple way to do that.
Interested in getting some other opinions though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Me too. I wish someone "owned" this code. :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's probably @pczarn if anyone. Interested in @aturon's API-thoughts though.