Skip to content

Conversation

@emilio
Copy link

@emilio emilio commented Sep 8, 2020

This is a breaking change. Not sure if you really want to take this but
I think it's the right thing to do.

This is a breaking change. Not sure if you really want to take this but
I think it's the right thing to do.

Fixes indexmap-rs#153
@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Sep 8, 2020

This is a breaking change.

I've added it to #135 to consider for 2.0.

In the meantime, we could add a method for ordered_eq, but it's just:

map1.len() == map2.len() && map1.iter().eq(&map2)

@emilio
Copy link
Author

emilio commented Sep 8, 2020

Yup, agree, ordered_eq is probably not quite worth it.

That seems reasonable, thank you!

@emilio
Copy link
Author

emilio commented Sep 8, 2020

Do you want to leave this PR open? Or should I close it?

@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Sep 8, 2020

Let's close -- it will be here when we're ready for 2.0, but that's not really happening yet.

@cuviper cuviper closed this Sep 8, 2020
assert_ne!(&set_b | &set_a, set_c);
assert_eq!(&set_a ^ &set_b, set_c);
assert_eq!(&set_b ^ &set_a, set_c);
assert_ne!(&set_b ^ &set_a, set_c);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

when this is revived later, this change does not preserve the intent of the test. It can of course be fleshed out when/if relevant later.

@bluss
Copy link
Member

bluss commented Sep 9, 2020

Thanks for filing. Not a bug since it's the intentional design, but worth discussing for sure. I think a method for ordered eq would be worth it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants