3 ms·
> (mainly because it would add ~30% more methods to Vec?) Sort of. Rather than bolting on fallible methods adhoc to an existing type, it was felt it would be b
by ChrisSD 3y ago
> (mainly because it would add ~30% more methods to Vec?)
Sort of. Rather than bolting on fallible methods adhoc to an existing type, it was felt it would be better to take a step back and actually design this properly. This includes third party crates experimenting with different options.
Maybe we should have a FallibleVec type? Maybe common vec-like methods could be abstracted out in to a `RawVec` type? Maybe both? Maybe the (unstable) `Allocator` API could be adapted to better suite all these cases? Whatever the case it's not great to be adding on a ton of methods in the heat of the moment.