Skip to content

Refactored mut_iter (libstd/option.rs) #12890

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Refactored mut_iter (libstd/option.rs) #12890

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

aochagavia
Copy link
Contributor

Using as_mut() instead of match

Some(ref mut x) => Item{opt: Some(x)},
None => Item{opt: None}
}
self.as_mut()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe that should be Item{opt: self.as_mut()}

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I am sorry... I am going to amend the commit

Using as_mut() instead of match
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Can you combine this with #12888? bors's cycle time is a little high, so splitting PRs into this granularity sometimes gets a little painful for us.

@aochagavia aochagavia deleted the option-mut_iter branch March 14, 2014 16:33
matthiaskrgr pushed a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 2, 2022
internal: Assume condition/iterable is missing if there is only a BlockExpr

cc rust-lang/rust-analyzer#12880 (comment)

It sounds good on paper, so let's try it
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants