Refactored mut_iter (libstd/option.rs) #12890
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
src/libstd/option.rs
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe that should be Item{opt: self.as_mut()}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I am sorry... I am going to amend the commit
Using as_mut() instead of match
|
Can you combine this with #12888? bors's cycle time is a little high, so splitting PRs into this granularity sometimes gets a little painful for us. |
matthiaskrgr
pushed a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2022
internal: Assume condition/iterable is missing if there is only a BlockExpr cc rust-lang/rust-analyzer#12880 (comment) It sounds good on paper, so let's try it
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Using as_mut() instead of match