rust
/
rfcs
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Remove incorrect statement about pinning 

There was a statement in the draft about, as a downside, something
needing to be pinned for the entire iteration rather than just for
each call to `next`.  But, of course, under the pinning guarantees,
these are equivalent.  Once something is pinned, unless it is `Unpin`,
it must be treated as pinned until it is destructed.  Let's remove
this statement.
This commit is contained in:
Travis Cross 2024-03-27 20:17:45 +00:00
parent f6cd712389
commit 4bf6106c80
1 changed files with 0 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

1
text/3513-gen-blocks.md
View File

@ -571,7 +571,6 @@ There are a few options for how to do this, either before or after stabilization
* Backward-compatibly add a way to change the argument type of `Iterator::next`.
* *Downside*: It's unclear whether this is possible.
* Implement `Iterator` for `Pin<&mut G>` instead of for `G` directly (whatever `G` is here, but it could be a `gen` block).
* *Downside*: The thing being iterated over must now be pinned for the entire iteration, instead of for each invocation of `next`.
* *Downside*: Now the `next` method takes a double-indirection as an argument `&mut Pin<&mut G>`, which may not optimize well sometimes.
This RFC is forward compatible with any such designs. However, if we were to stabilize `gen` blocks that could not hold borrows across `yield` points, this would be a serious usability limitation that users might find surprising. Consequently, whether we should choose to address this before stabilization is an open question.