[reverted] implement PartialEq<VecDeque<U>> for Vec<T>, &[T], &mut [T], [T; N], &[T; N] and &mut [T; N]

[iAeternus]

View all comments

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.

[rustbot]

r? @joboet

rustbot has assigned @joboet.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: libs
• libs expanded to 7 candidates
• Random selection from Mark-Simulacrum, jhpratt, joboet

[workingjubilee]

...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

[workingjubilee]

This PR is already addressed by #149045

[workingjubilee]

Wait, this isn't addressed by that, this is VecDeque not Vec.

[joboet]

r? libs-api

This will need an FCP.

This is my first time participating in this project. If there are any mistakes, please feel free to correct me.

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
until then.

[rustbot]

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

[iAeternus]

r? libs-api

This will need an FCP.

This is my first time participating in this project. If there are any mistakes, please feel free to correct me.

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 until then.

Thank you for your suggestion. I have rewritten the PR description. From now on, I will describe the PR in my own words.

[iAeternus]

@rustbot ready

[iAeternus]

Starting a crater run to check if this breaks type inference in the ecosystem.

@bors try

[rust-bors]

@iAeternus: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users

[clarfonthey]

(note: the error is because you are using the same stability attribute for the new and old impls. I think you might need to move the attribute to be part of the macro call instead to fix this)

[clarfonthey]

So, decision here is that we're approaching past the point where things are useful once we go past Vec into VecDeque because the matrix of possibilities is just too big. There's a good table here that shows just how many types are involved, and it's not even complete.

But, with them, we are okay adding symmetric versions of existing impls if none of them break inference. If any break inference, we're planning to close. So, we'll wait on crater.

[craterbot]

🚧 Experiment pr-152972 is now running

ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

[craterbot]

🎉 Experiment pr-152972 is completed!
📊 0 regressed and 0 fixed (1124431 total)
📊 6141 spurious results on the retry-regressed-list.txt, consider a retry¹ if this is a significant amount.
📰 Open the summary report.

⚠️ If you notice any spurious failure please add them to the denylist!
ℹ️ Crater is a tool to run experiments across parts of the Rust ecosystem. Learn more

Footnotes

1. re-run the experiment with crates=https://crater-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-152972/retry-regressed-list.txt ↩

[clarfonthey]

@bors r+ rollup

Crater is benevolent this time…

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 9942d36 has been approved by clarfonthey

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[joboet]

So, decision here is that we're approaching past the point where things are useful once we go past Vec into VecDeque because the matrix of possibilities is just too big. There's a good table here that shows just how many types are involved, and it's not even complete.

But, with them, we are okay adding symmetric versions of existing impls if none of them break inference. If any break inference, we're planning to close. So, we'll wait on crater.

Shouldn't this still have gone through FCP? It's an instant-stable public API change, after all. It's probably fine to do retroactively...

[clarfonthey]

Yes, I definitely just brain farted on that one ><

I'll revert so we can do a proper FCP.

[clarfonthey]

Revert: #163752