Incorporate a stray test
`liballoc/repeat-generic-slice.rs` doesn't seem to be tested (I think it was intended to be placed in `run-pass`). This PR incorporates the test into `liballoc/tests`.
Deprecation of str::slice_unchecked(_mut)
Closes#51715
I am not sure if 1.28.0 or 1.29.0 should be used for deprecation version, for now it's 1.28.0.
Additionally I've replaced `slice_unchecked` uses with `get_unchecked`. The only places where this method is still used are `src/liballoc/tests/str.rs` and `src/liballoc/tests/str.rs`.
old tests cover the new fast path of str joining already
this adds tests for joining into Strings with long separators (>4 byte) and
for joining into Vec<T>, T: Clone + !Copy. Vec<T: Copy> will be
specialised when specialisation type inference bugs are fixed.
Escape combining characters in char::Debug
Although combining characters are technically printable, they make little sense to print on their own with `Debug`: it'd be better to escape them like non-printable characters.
This is a breaking change, but I imagine the fact `escape_debug` is rare and almost certainly primarily used for debugging that this is an acceptable change.
Resolves#41922.
r? @alexcrichton
cc @clarcharr
Give SliceIndex impls a test suite of girth befitting the implementation (and fix a UTF8 boundary check)
So one day I was writing something in my codebase that basically amounted to `impl SliceIndex for (Bound<usize>, Bound<usize>)`, and I said to myself:
*Boy, gee, golly! I never realized bounds checking was so tricky!*
At some point when I had around 60 lines of tests for it, I decided to go see how the standard library does it to see if I missed any edge cases. ...That's when I discovered that libcore only had about 40 lines of tests for slicing altogether, and none of them even used `..=`.
---
This PR includes:
* **Literally the first appearance of the word `get_unchecked_mut` in any directory named `test` or `tests`.**
* Likewise the first appearance of `get_mut` used with _any type of range argument_ in these directories.
* Tests for the panics on overflow with `..=`.
* I wanted to test on `[(); usize::MAX]` as well but that takes linear time in debug mode </3
* A horrible and ugly test-generating macro for the `should_panic` tests that increases the DRYness by a single order of magnitude (which IMO wasn't enough, but I didn't want to go any further and risk making the tests inaccessible to next guy).
* Same stuff for str!
* Actually, the existing `str` tests were pretty good. I just helped filled in the holes.
* [A fix for the bug it caught](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50002). (only one ~~sadly~~)
Add slice::sort_by_cached_key as a memoised sort_by_key
At present, `slice::sort_by_key` calls its key function twice for each comparison that is made. When the key function is expensive (which can often be the case when `sort_by_key` is chosen over `sort_by`), this can lead to very suboptimal behaviour.
To address this, I've introduced a new slice method, `sort_by_cached_key`, which has identical semantic behaviour to `sort_by_key`, except that it guarantees the key function will only be called once per element.
Where there are `n` elements and the key function is `O(m)`:
- `slice::sort_by_cached_key` time complexity is `O(m n log m n)`, compared to `slice::sort_by_key`'s `O(m n + n log n)`.
- `slice::sort_by_cached_key` space complexity remains at `O(n + m)`. (Technically, it now reserves a slice of size `n`, whereas before it reserved a slice of size `n/2`.)
`slice::sort_unstable_by_key` has not been given an analogue, as it is important that unstable sorts are in-place, which is not a property that is guaranteed here. However, this also means that `slice::sort_unstable_by_key` is likely to be slower than `slice::sort_by_cached_key` when the key function does not have negligible complexity. We might want to explore this trade-off further in the future.
Benchmarks (for a vector of 100 `i32`s):
```
# Lexicographic: `|x| x.to_string()`
test bench_sort_by_key ... bench: 112,638 ns/iter (+/- 19,563)
test bench_sort_by_cached_key ... bench: 15,038 ns/iter (+/- 4,814)
# Identity: `|x| *x`
test bench_sort_by_key ... bench: 1,346 ns/iter (+/- 238)
test bench_sort_by_cached_key ... bench: 1,839 ns/iter (+/- 765)
# Power: `|x| x.pow(31)`
test bench_sort_by_key ... bench: 3,624 ns/iter (+/- 738)
test bench_sort_by_cached_key ... bench: 1,997 ns/iter (+/- 311)
# Abs: `|x| x.abs()`
test bench_sort_by_key ... bench: 1,546 ns/iter (+/- 174)
test bench_sort_by_cached_key ... bench: 1,668 ns/iter (+/- 790)
```
(So it seems functions that are single operations do perform slightly worse with this method, but for pretty much any more complex key, you're better off with this optimisation.)
I've definitely found myself using expensive keys in the past and wishing this optimisation was made (e.g. for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/47415). This feels like both desirable and expected behaviour, at the small cost of slightly more stack allocation and minute degradation in performance for extremely trivial keys.
Resolves#34447.
Stabilize inclusive range (`..=`)
Stabilize the followings:
* `inclusive_range` — The `std::ops::RangeInclusive` and `std::ops::RangeInclusiveTo` types, except its fields (tracked by #49022 separately).
* `inclusive_range_syntax` — The `a..=b` and `..=b` expression syntax
* `dotdoteq_in_patterns` — Using `a..=b` in a pattern
cc #28237
r? @rust-lang/lang
kennytm