-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 311
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
Merge multipeek peeknth #940
Draft
Owen-CH-Leung
wants to merge
8
commits into
rust-itertools:master
Choose a base branch
from
Owen-CH-Leung:merge_multipeek_peeknth
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+141
−148
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
756ba95
Add multipeek_general.rs
Owen-CH-Leung c130144
Remove multipeek_impl and peek_nth, revise lib.rs and other files for…
Owen-CH-Leung 518c877
fix cargo fmt, cargo doc and rebase master
Owen-CH-Leung 5a1f1a9
Merge branch 'master' into merge_multipeek_peeknth
Owen-CH-Leung 3fab1c2
Address some of the comments
Owen-CH-Leung 4bf4e4b
Put peek into multipeek_general, and remove implementation for PeekNt…
Owen-CH-Leung 3920dbe
Fix peeking_next
Owen-CH-Leung 4fc8456
Change increment_index to generic add, add test to test peek_nth and …
Owen-CH-Leung 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
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 was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
What should we expect from
MultiPeek::nth_if
concerning the index? To advance only iffunc
returnedtrue
I guess. But I would expect the doc of the method to decribe this but we can't make different docs forMultiPeek
/PeekNth
without making different methods.⚠ Maybe I was too optimistic about this merge. ⚠
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 believe with the merge we'd need to completely revise the doc to describe the API behaviour under
MultiPeek
andPeekNth
. I can help to re-write them if we decide to go for the direction to merge both.