Skip to content

Tracking issue for str::split_ascii_whitespace #48656

Description

@clarfonthey

Implemented in #49987:

impl str {
    pub fn split_ascii_whitespace(&self) -> SplitAsciiWhitespace {…}
}

#[derive(Clone, Debug)]
pub struct SplitAsciiWhitespace<'a> {…}

impl<'a> Iterator for SplitAsciiWhitespace<'a> {
    type Item = &'a str;
    …
}
impl<'a> DoubleEndedIterator for SplitAsciiWhitespace<'a> {…}
impl<'a> FusedIterator for SplitAsciiWhitespace<'a> {}

Original feature request:


Considering how is_ascii_whitespace is now available on libcore, it makes sense to provide this too.

I'll provide a PR at some point if this seems reasonable; a lot of code that needs to split on whitespace only needs to split on ASCII whitespace, which is considerably faster.

Activity

added
C-tracking-issueCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC
and removed
C-feature-requestCategory: A feature request, i.e: not implemented / a PR.
on Jun 27, 2018
changed the title [-]str::split_ascii_whitespace[/-] [+]Tracking isuse for str::split_ascii_whitespace[/+] on Jun 27, 2018
changed the title [-]Tracking isuse for str::split_ascii_whitespace[/-] [+]Tracking issue for str::split_ascii_whitespace[/+] on Jun 27, 2018

SimonSapin commented on Jun 27, 2018

@SimonSapin
Contributor

The implementation PR is in the bors queue, I’ve turned this into a tracking issue.

added a commit that references this issue on Jun 27, 2018

clarfonthey commented on Nov 27, 2018

@clarfonthey
ContributorAuthor

How do people feel about stabilising this?

SimonSapin commented on Nov 28, 2018

@SimonSapin
Contributor

Let’s.

@rfcbot fcp merge

rfcbot commented on Nov 28, 2018

@rfcbot

Team member @SimonSapin has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

added
proposed-final-comment-periodProposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off.
disposition-mergeThis issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it.
final-comment-periodIn the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised.
on Nov 28, 2018

rfcbot commented on Nov 29, 2018

@rfcbot

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

removed
proposed-final-comment-periodProposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off.
on Nov 29, 2018

rfcbot commented on Dec 9, 2018

@rfcbot

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

added and removed
final-comment-periodIn the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised.
on Dec 9, 2018

Centril commented on Dec 29, 2018

@Centril
Contributor

@clarcharr Up for writing a stabilization PR?

added a commit that references this issue on Feb 1, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    A-iteratorsArea: IteratorsC-tracking-issueCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCT-libs-api[DEPRECATED; DO NOT USE]disposition-mergeThis issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it.finished-final-comment-periodThe final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions