Implement Stream automatically for Reader + Writer #8984
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
This is consistent with the existing documentation but was not the actual behaviour, which I've found to be rather a nuisance, actually.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 5, 2013
This is consistent with the existing documentation but was not the actual behaviour, which I've found to be rather a nuisance, actually.
chris-morgan
added a commit
to chris-morgan/rust-http
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 6, 2013
With the landing of rust-lang/rust#8984, we can finally use Stream meaningfully...
pcwalton
pushed a commit
to servo/rust-http
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2013
With the landing of rust-lang/rust#8984, we can finally use Stream meaningfully...
Jarcho
pushed a commit
to Jarcho/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 29, 2022
Implemented `suspicious_to_owned` lint to check if `to_owned` is called on a `Cow` changelog: Add lint ``[`suspicious_to_owned`]`` ----------------- Hi, posting this unsolicited PR as I've been burned by this issue :) Being unsolicited, feel free to reject it or reassign a different lint level etc. This lint checks whether `to_owned` is called on `Cow<'_, _>`. This is done because `to_owned` is very similarly named to `into_owned`, but the effect of calling those two methods is completely different (one makes the `Cow::Borrowed` into a `Cow::Owned`, the other just clones the `Cow`). If the cow is then passed to code for which the type is not checked (e.g. generics, closures, etc.) it might slip through and if the cow data is coming from an unsafe context there is the potential for accidentally cause undefined behavior. Even if not falling into this painful case, there's really no reason to call `to_owned` on a `Cow` other than confusing people reading the code: either `into_owned` or `clone` should be called. Note that this overlaps perfectly with `implicit_clone` as a warning, but `implicit_clone` is classified pedantic (while the consequences for `Cow` might be of a wider blast radius than just pedantry); given the overlap, I set-up the lint so that if `suspicious_to_owned` triggers `implicit_clone` will not trigger. I'm not 100% sure this is done in the correct way (I tried to copy what other lints were doing) so please provide feedback on it if it isn't. ### Checklist - \[x] Followed [lint naming conventions][lint_naming] - \[x] Added passing UI tests (including committed `.stderr` file) - \[x] `cargo test` passes locally - \[x] Executed `cargo dev update_lints` - \[x] Added lint documentation - \[x] Run `cargo dev fmt`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is consistent with the existing documentation but was not the
actual behaviour, which I've found to be rather a nuisance, actually.