| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
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.
|
|
This is in the matter of RFC 1940 and tracking issue #43302.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Required moving all fulldeps tests depending on `rand` to different locations as
now there's multiple `rand` crates that can't be implicitly linked against.
|
|
Add slice::ExactChunks and ::ExactChunksMut iterators
These guarantee that always the requested slice size will be returned
and any leftoever elements at the end will be ignored. It allows llvm to
get rid of bounds checks in the code using the iterator.
This is inspired by the same iterators provided by ndarray.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47115
I'll add unit tests for all this if the general idea and behaviour makes sense for everybody.
Also see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47115#issuecomment-354715511 for an example what this improves.
|
|
These are basically modified copies of the chunks/chunks_mut tests.
|
|
This way more useful information is printed if the test ever fails.
|
|
Background
==========
Slices currently have an unstable [`rotate`] method which rotates
elements in the slice to the _left_ N positions. [Here][tracking] is the
tracking issue for this unstable feature.
```rust
let mut a = ['a', 'b' ,'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'];
a.rotate(2);
assert_eq!(a, ['c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'a', 'b']);
```
Proposal
========
Deprecate the [`rotate`] method and introduce `rotate_left` and
`rotate_right` methods.
```rust
let mut a = ['a', 'b' ,'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'];
a.rotate_left(2);
assert_eq!(a, ['c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'a', 'b']);
```
```rust
let mut a = ['a', 'b' ,'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'];
a.rotate_right(2);
assert_eq!(a, ['e', 'f', 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd']);
```
Justification
=============
I used this method today for my first time and (probably because I’m a
naive westerner who reads LTR) was surprised when the docs mentioned that
elements get rotated in a left-ward direction. I was in a situation
where I needed to shift elements in a right-ward direction and had to
context switch from the main problem I was working on and think how much
to rotate left in order to accomplish the right-ward rotation I needed.
Ruby’s `Array.rotate` shifts left-ward, Python’s `deque.rotate` shifts
right-ward. Both of their implementations allow passing negative numbers
to shift in the opposite direction respectively.
Introducing `rotate_left` and `rotate_right` would:
- remove ambiguity about direction (alleviating need to read docs 😉)
- make it easier for people who need to rotate right
[`rotate`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.slice.html#method.rotate
[tracking]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41891
|
|
This commit removes the `rand` crate from the standard library facade as
well as the `__rand` module in the standard library. Neither of these
were used in any meaningful way in the standard library itself. The only
need for randomness in libstd is to initialize the thread-local keys of
a `HashMap`, and that unconditionally used `OsRng` defined in the
standard library anyway.
The cruft of the `rand` crate and the extra `rand` support in the
standard library makes libstd slightly more difficult to port to new
platforms, namely WebAssembly which doesn't have any randomness at all
(without interfacing with JS). The purpose of this commit is to clarify
and streamline randomness in libstd, focusing on how it's only required
in one location, hashmap seeds.
Note that the `rand` crate out of tree has almost always been a drop-in
replacement for the `rand` crate in-tree, so any usage (accidental or
purposeful) of the crate in-tree should switch to the `rand` crate on
crates.io. This then also has the further benefit of avoiding
duplication (mostly) between the two crates!
|
|
|
|
|
