API additions about stable-vec HOT 3 CLOSED

Besides #25, I am also willing to implement IntoIter and insert_at, if you're not working on it already.

from stable-vec.

@burjui Thanks for the offer. No I'm not working on either right now. You can certainly implement insert_at (in a new PR though), but I am not sure about IntoIter yet.

This stuff is pretty tricky, I think. At least for Vec<T> the iterator is tricky because it has to make sure nothing is dropped twice, even in the case of a panic somewhere. However, I could be wrong and it's easy for StableVec.

Another concern I have with IntoIter is that I am very unhappy with the current implementation. In the beginning I thought using a Vec<T> would be a good idea until I introduced two memory unsafety bugs 🙈 (#24). That's why I very much want to rewrite the internals, presumably even in a generic way so that the user can decide which representation to use (see #2). So if IntoIter would need any knowledge about the internals, I think it's not worth implementing it now.

However, if you can implement IntoIter easily completely on top of the public StableVec API (without being less efficient than it could be), I'd be very happy to merge that!

from stable-vec.

Almost everything was implemented by now. I will close this large-scope issue now. Separate issues can be created for separate features. (Example #29)

from stable-vec.