- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 13.9k
          Modify collection's Debug output to resemble in their content only
          #22157
        
          New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
| reem voiced some concerns on IRC (2015-02-10 22:00:00 +0100):  | 
| Conventions issue, punting to r? @aturon | 
        
          
                src/libcollections/bit.rs
              
                Outdated
          
        
      There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is an interesting case. A big binary string seems reasonable, I suppose.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Didn't change anything here though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah totally. Poking around it just got me thinking.
| Seems to be missing fixes for BTree* if you meant to be exhaustive. Also apparently BinaryHeap has no impl?? | 
| @gankro Implemented for  | 
| Citing RFC 565 
 (just pointing out that this is currently intended) | 
| @alexcrichton I understand that as: Containers print something that makes their semantic type clear ( | 
| I would personally be ok with that interpretation, and I'm in favor of this change. | 
| @tbu- Thanks for this PR! I'm also in favor of these changes and interpretation of the RFC, particularly since none of the current outputs can be used to reconstruct the collection. (Aside: if we had macros for constructing each collection, you could imagine printing  | 
| @aturon Any update? Should I rebase this? | 
| @tbu- As I said in an earlier comment, I'm happy with these changes -- sorry nothing has happened since then! If you rebase, please ping @alexcrichton since I am away on vacation this week. | 
| Yes I'd be fine merging with a rebase | 
3064e67    to
    870ad3b      
    Compare
  
    | Rebased and  | 
| ⌛ Testing commit 870ad3b with merge 5e5c9f6... | 
| 💔 Test failed - auto-linux-64-x-android-t | 
| (Not a real failure, happened because I forced the rollup through) | 
| @bors: retry | 
| ⚡ Previous build results are reusable. Rebuilding only auto-linux-32-nopt-t, auto-linux-32-opt, auto-linux-64-nopt-t, auto-linux-64-opt, auto-linux-64-x-android-t, auto-mac-32-opt, auto-mac-64-nopt-t, auto-mac-64-opt, auto-win-32-nopt-t, auto-win-32-opt, auto-win-64-nopt-t, auto-win-64-opt... | 
| 💔 Test failed - auto-win-32-nopt-t | 
| @bors: retry (not a real failure) | 
| ⚡ Previous build results are reusable. Rebuilding only auto-linux-32-nopt-t, auto-linux-32-opt, auto-linux-64-nopt-t, auto-linux-64-opt, auto-linux-64-x-android-t, auto-mac-32-opt, auto-mac-64-nopt-t, auto-mac-64-opt, auto-win-32-nopt-t, auto-win-32-opt, auto-win-64-nopt-t, auto-win-64-opt... | 
| 💔 Test failed - auto-win-32-opt | 
| @bors: retry (Please ignore the failures for now) | 
| ⚡ Previous build results are reusable. Rebuilding only auto-linux-32-nopt-t, auto-linux-32-opt, auto-linux-64-nopt-t, auto-linux-64-opt, auto-linux-64-x-android-t, auto-mac-32-opt, auto-mac-64-nopt-t, auto-mac-64-opt, auto-win-32-nopt-t, auto-win-32-opt, auto-win-64-nopt-t, auto-win-64-opt... | 
| 💔 Test failed - auto-win-64-nopt-t | 
r? @gankro