Add new constructors to ArrayVec and ArrayString, that instead of returning initialized Self, write to user-provided out-pointer.
Rationale
Consider following case. I want to use a heap allocated Vec-like structure, but with const-known maximum capacity. I would like to use Box<ArrayVec<T, N>> as a backing storage. However creating such type is problematic. For sufficiently big N expression Box::new(ArrayVec::new()) may overflow stack. Box (and other types in standard library) have currently unstable (but stable in current beta, which will hit stable in 3 days) API new_uninit that helps to solve this exact case. However arrayvec does not have any API that would allow constructing its types in-place, which makes it impossible to safely use aforementioned std APIs. By adding this kind of constructors, ArrayVec becomes usable in described scenario (and others that require in-place initialization).
Drawbacks
Adding this will expose new API, which will increase stability burden on maintainers.
Implementation of such constructor will require unsafe code. While it wouldn't be very difficult one, it will require more attention when doing possible internal refactors.
Other possibilities
One possibility is to just do nothing. Users who wish to use placement-new-like constructors can just re-implement ArrayVec manually.
There is also a dark and unsafe way. Since ArrayVec has #[repr(C)], one can create their own mirror type, initialize it, and then std::mem::transmute it into arrayvec::ArrayVec. I think it requires no further explanation why this should not be preferred by anyone. :)
Third possibility would be to make ArrayVec's fields public, which would allow users to instantiate it how they wish. I do not want to endorse this, just mention it for the sake of completeness.
Possible implementation
Here is a possible implementation:
impl<T, const CAP: usize> ArrayVec<T, CAP> {
pub fn new_in(dest: &mut MaybeUninit<Self>) {
let dest = dest.as_mut_ptr();
unsafe {
let len_ptr = core::ptr::addr_of_mut!((*dest).len);
len_ptr.write(0);
}
}
}
It could be used like this:
let mut stack: Box<ArrayVec<i32, N>> = {
let mut uninit_stack = Box::new_uninit();
ArrayVec::new_in(&mut uninit_stack);
unsafe { Box::<MaybeUninit<_>>::assume_init(uninit_stack) }
};
Open questions
[ ] What should be the name of such constructor?
[ ] Should the out-pointer be &mut MaybeUninit<Self>, *mut Self or something different?
[ ] Should this method be unsafe? It should be sound anyway, but maybe it would be better that user thinks twice before calling it.
[ ] How to communicate to user that calling it on an already initialized value will not call Drop on contained value?
Feature description
Add new constructors to
ArrayVec
andArrayString
, that instead of returning initializedSelf
, write to user-provided out-pointer.Rationale
Consider following case. I want to use a heap allocated
Vec
-like structure, but withconst
-known maximum capacity. I would like to useBox<ArrayVec<T, N>>
as a backing storage. However creating such type is problematic. For sufficiently bigN
expressionBox::new(ArrayVec::new())
may overflow stack.Box
(and other types in standard library) have currently unstable (but stable in current beta, which will hit stable in 3 days) APInew_uninit
that helps to solve this exact case. Howeverarrayvec
does not have any API that would allow constructing its types in-place, which makes it impossible to safely use aforementioned std APIs. By adding this kind of constructors,ArrayVec
becomes usable in described scenario (and others that require in-place initialization).Drawbacks
unsafe
code. While it wouldn't be very difficult one, it will require more attention when doing possible internal refactors.Other possibilities
One possibility is to just do nothing. Users who wish to use placement-new-like constructors can just re-implement
ArrayVec
manually.There is also a dark and unsafe way. Since
ArrayVec
has#[repr(C)]
, one can create their own mirror type, initialize it, and thenstd::mem::transmute
it intoarrayvec::ArrayVec
. I think it requires no further explanation why this should not be preferred by anyone. :)Third possibility would be to make
ArrayVec
's fields public, which would allow users to instantiate it how they wish. I do not want to endorse this, just mention it for the sake of completeness.Possible implementation
Here is a possible implementation:
It could be used like this:
Open questions
&mut MaybeUninit<Self>
,*mut Self
or something different?unsafe
? It should be sound anyway, but maybe it would be better that user thinks twice before calling it.Drop
on contained value?