Bump bitvec from 0.20.1 to 0.21.0

[dependabot]

Bumps bitvec from 0.20.1 to 0.21.0.

Changelog

Sourced from bitvec's changelog.

0.21.0

Added

• The BitArr! macro constructs BitArray type names.
• BitVec::from_element and BitVec::from_slice constructors. Thanks to GitHub user [@​HamishWMC] for reöpening [Issue #6]
• BitSlice::{first,last}_{one,zero} finds the index of the first or last bit in the bit-slice set to one or zero, respectively. Thanks to GitHub user [@​seanyoung] for the feature request in [Issue #103].
• BitSlice::{leading,trailing}_{ones,zeros} count the length of the run of the requested bit at the requested edge of the bit-slice. Thanks to GitHub user @​seanyoung for the feature request in Issue #103.

Changed

• The bitarr! macro no longer constructs BitArray type names. In addition, it can take a const first argument to produce code that is usable in const contexts, such as producing a const or static binding. These invocations are limited to only using the blessed Lsb0, Msb0, and LocalBits ordering tokens, and may not use any other type names for orderings.

• The bits! macro now accepts static and static mut first arguments. These direct the macro to produce a hidden static item containing a buffer produced by bitarr!(const). Borrowing a BitArray as a BitSlice requires code that cannot run in const contexts, so this macro may still only be used in local expressions, and not in static bindings. This behavior is useful for ensuring that the macro produces a permanent buffer rather than a temporary stack item.

• The IterOnes and IterZeros bit-finding iterators have some acceleration by specialization. The provided orderings will now use the {leading,trailing}_{ones,zeros} methods in the standard library rather than implementing a search directly.

Fixed

GitHub user [@​ordian] fixed incorrect len() exclusion from BitVec::insert in [Pull Request #104].

0.20

0.20.2

Fixed overly vague funty dependency, as the 1.2 release moved BITS from bitvec into it, but old bitvecs now collided. Apologies to everyone who dealt with this problem after I published and immediately went on vacation for two weeks!

0.20.0

... (truncated)

Commits

• See full diff in compare view

Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting @dependabot rebase.

---

Dependabot commands and options

You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:

• @dependabot rebase will rebase this PR
• @dependabot recreate will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it
• @dependabot merge will merge this PR after your CI passes on it
• @dependabot squash and merge will squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it
• @dependabot cancel merge will cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging
• @dependabot reopen will reopen this PR if it is closed
• @dependabot close will close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually
• @dependabot ignore this major version will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
• @dependabot ignore this minor version will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
• @dependabot ignore this dependency will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)

[dependabot]

The following labels could not be found: A2-insubstantial, B0-silent, C1-low 📌.

[dependabot]

Dependabot tried to update this pull request, but something went wrong. We're looking into it, but in the meantime you can retry the update by commenting @dependabot rebase.

[dependabot]

Dependabot tried to update this pull request, but something went wrong. We're looking into it, but in the meantime you can retry the update by commenting @dependabot rebase.

[dependabot]

Superseded by #14.