Positions based on Enumerate
#816
Merged
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
`Positions` is tested to be fused, for specialized methods and has two doctests. No other test. While I was adding `Enumerate` in `Positions` internals, running `cargo test positions` told me `rfold` was wrong. The silly mistake was on `next_back` instead and this test would have helped me. Plus, I noticed that the documentation was just a bit wrong.
phimuemue
approved these changes
Dec 9, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Following #813 (comment), with this PR,
Positionsnow usesEnumerateinternally.nextandnext_backare now based onfind_mapinstead of "while-next" loops. It would be useful performance-wise for iterators specializingtry_[r]fold. I intend to do the same for other while-next loops (where benchmarks show times decrease, up to -20%).filter_mapto avoid*copy).