You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Now that next_array exists, it's not so hard to write the methods array_chunks (functionally equivalent to from_fn(|| self.next_array())) and array_windows, similar to the unstable slice::array_chunks and slice::array_windows respectively. However it's similarly unclear what array_chunks<0> and array_windows<0> should do. Does it make sense to emit a post-monomorphization (but still compile-time) error, via say const { assert!(N > 0) }? Or is it better to produce run-time errors?
Is the name arrays preferable to array_chunks, to be consistent with Itertools::tuples?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Now that
next_array
exists, it's not so hard to write the methodsarray_chunks
(functionally equivalent tofrom_fn(|| self.next_array())
) andarray_windows
, similar to the unstableslice::array_chunks
andslice::array_windows
respectively. However it's similarly unclear whatarray_chunks<0>
andarray_windows<0>
should do. Does it make sense to emit a post-monomorphization (but still compile-time) error, via sayconst { assert!(N > 0) }
? Or is it better to produce run-time errors?Is the name
arrays
preferable toarray_chunks
, to be consistent withItertools::tuples
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: