Skip to content

Tracking Issue for Iterator fold_mut #76751

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
3 tasks
mlodato517 opened this issue Sep 15, 2020 · 0 comments
Closed
3 tasks

Tracking Issue for Iterator fold_mut #76751

mlodato517 opened this issue Sep 15, 2020 · 0 comments
Labels
A-iterators Area: Iterators C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@mlodato517
Copy link
Contributor

This is a tracking issue for the fold_mut method in the Iterator trait defined in #76746.
The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(iterator_fold_mut)].

Steps

Unresolved Questions

  1. Should we instead put this effort into optimizing the existing fold method?
  2. Why is the existing fold method any slower?

Implementation history

Implementing fold_mut - #76746
@mlodato517 mlodato517 added the C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC label Sep 15, 2020
@mlodato517 mlodato517 mentioned this issue Sep 15, 2020
Closed
@jonas-schievink jonas-schievink added A-iterators Area: Iterators T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Sep 15, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A-iterators Area: Iterators C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@jonas-schievink @mlodato517