Description
Proposal
Problem statement
Sometimes it is desirable to display an OsStr
with invalid Unicode sequences replaced with �
. Currently, the most obvious way to do this is with OsStr::to_string_lossy
, however this incurs an allocation and additional copy when the OsStr
contains invalid Unicode. It would be useful to have an obvious and efficient way to do this.
Motivating examples or use cases
Lapce has a few cases of needing to display an OsStr
, for example here:
let (svg, color) = config.file_svg(&path);
(
svg,
color,
format!(
"{} (Diff)",
path.file_name()
.unwrap_or_default()
.to_string_lossy()
),
is_pristine,
)
Solution sketch
Add a display
method to OsStr
, similar to the existing Path::display
method. The method would return a type that references the OsStr
and implements fmt::Display
.
The implementation could reuse the logic currently used for Path::display
. See the most recent commit on https://github.com/riverbl/rust/tree/os-str-display for an example implementation.
Alternatives
OsStr::to_string_lossy
allows displaying an OsStr
, but is less efficient.
OsStr
implements AsRef<Path>
, so Path::display
could be used and would be just as efficient as this new method. The main issue I see with using Path::display
is that it is confusing to anyone reading the code that an OsStr
, the contents of which may not relate to a path, is being converted to a Path
before being displayed.
A crate could provide this functionality, either using Path::display
or a custom implementation on top of OsStr::as_encoded_bytes
.
Links and related work
What happens now?
This issue contains an API change proposal (or ACP) and is part of the libs-api team feature lifecycle. Once this issue is filed, the libs-api team will review open proposals as capability becomes available. Current response times do not have a clear estimate, but may be up to several months.
Possible responses
The libs team may respond in various different ways. First, the team will consider the problem (this doesn't require any concrete solution or alternatives to have been proposed):
- We think this problem seems worth solving, and the standard library might be the right place to solve it.
- We think that this probably doesn't belong in the standard library.
Second, if there's a concrete solution:
- We think this specific solution looks roughly right, approved, you or someone else should implement this. (Further review will still happen on the subsequent implementation PR.)
- We're not sure this is the right solution, and the alternatives or other materials don't give us enough information to be sure about that. Here are some questions we have that aren't answered, or rough ideas about alternatives we'd want to see discussed.