Skip to content

Tracking Issue for Vec::push_mut #135974

@balt-dev

Description

@balt-dev

Feature gate: #![feature(push_mut)]

This is a tracking issue for Vec::push_mut and similar methods, as discussed in the comments of this ACP. This adds a way to get a reference to the just-pushed value, which can eliminate having to .unwrap() or access the back of the list twice.

Public API

// All are `#[must_use]` to suggest using `.push(...)` if you don't need the reference

impl<T> Vec<T> {
    #[must_use]
    pub fn push_mut(&mut self, value: T) -> &mut T;
    #[must_use]
    pub fn insert_mut(&mut self, index: usize, element: T) -> &mut T;
}

impl<T> VecDeque<T> {
    #[must_use]
    pub fn push_front_mut(&mut self, value: T) -> &mut T;
    #[must_use]
    pub fn push_back_mut(&mut self, value: T) -> &mut T;
    #[must_use]
    pub fn insert_mut(&mut self, index: usize, value: T) -> &mut T;
}

impl<T> LinkedList<T> {
    #[must_use]
    pub fn push_front_mut(&mut self, elt: T) -> &mut T;
    #[must_use]
    pub fn push_back_mut(&mut self, elt: T) -> &mut T
}

Steps / History

Unresolved Questions

  • Does must_use make sense? Are there downsides of push_mut vs. push?

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    C-tracking-issueCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCI-lang-radarItems that are on lang's radar and will need eventual work or consideration.T-libs-apiRelevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.disposition-mergeThis issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it.final-comment-periodIn the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions