Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @ibraheemdev (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

Sorry if I did this wrong, it's my first time!

A single trailing whitespace. Oops.

I'm not sure we should be touching Vec::push here.. maybe just duplicate the implementation?

Alright, I'll do that soon.

I finally got around to duplicating the implementation. College has been eating my time like a child with Halloween candy, sorry.

@rustbot review

@balt-dev
Thanks for your contribution
From wg-triage. Any updates on this PR?

I'm sorry, college has been quite a time sink for me and I haven't had the time to follow up as of recent - I will when I can, promise!

It's been a rough few months. ._.

hm.

I think I messed up my fork so bad I'll have to reset it and put my code in from scratch in order to get rid of the merge commit. At least it's copy/pasteable?

@rustbot author

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

Failed to set assignee to author: cannot assign: response: {"message":"Not Found","documentation_url":"https://docs.github.com/rest/issues/assignees#add-assignees-to-an-issue","status":"404"}

Note: Only org members with at least the repository "read" role, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

...is rustbot down? I'm not seeing a reply on my end.

Ah. Nevermind, GitHub mobile app sucks apparently.

@rustbot ready

I think #135975 (comment) still needs to be addressed. If you feel strongly about the API change you can comment on the original ACP or open a new one, but that should probably stay separate from this PR.

@rustbot ready

oh
@rustbot author

I think #135975 (comment) still needs to be addressed. If you feel strongly about the API change you can comment on the original ACP or open a new one, but that should probably stay separate from this PR.

That's fair. I can go back and make it panic instead, but I'm going to comment on the original ACP first - or make a new one if nobody sees that comment.

Per some quick discussion on the ACP, I'm going to make it panic, and maybe we can introduce a try_insert_mut at a later date.