Access UnionFields elements by index
#8959
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
alamb
approved these changes
Dec 10, 2025
Contributor
alamb
left a comment
alamb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense to me -- thank you @friendlymatthew
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue does this PR close?
IndexforUnionFields#8958Rationale for this change
This PR introduces 2 ways to access elements of
UnionFieldsby index. You can now use direct indexing (fields[idx]) or the safe accessorUnionFields::get(index: usize)to avoid potential panicsNote, since we validate
UnionFieldscontains only 128 elements upon construction, we can forgo this check upon read