phimuemue

Just my 2 cents: For a personal project, I needed a similar thing, which I encapsulated into an own crate, `plain_enum` (see [here][1]). While it is probably not suited for...

Hi @bruderjakob17. I think this might be a neat addition. I think I understand the idea of your algorithm (though I did not in-depth-review it), and I think we can...

Hi @bruderjakob17, just want to let you know that I did not forget this. The new implementation imho already looks much cleaner. If you want to pursue this further, please...

Hi @bruderjakob17, cool. Please rebase against the branch `master` (at the time of writing this, this is 7a274080e01ffbe480fda96ce35600807f759974), and then open a PR. If you do this, please ansure that...

Hi there! Regarding `type Item=Vec`: Do you think we could we make this a "lazy" chunking operation? (iirc such as `GroupBy`.)

To be honest, I did not follow the discussion that lead to having `PartialOrd`, so I may be missing important arguments here. However, I am a bit wary when it...

@bluss @jswrenn Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that is not top-prio at the moment. Maybe we can wait and gather more opinions/data to reach a well-informed decision.

Hi there. Foremost, thank you for your upfront effort to clarify the modalities. I hope I do not miss anything, but what is the difference to `combinations_with_replacement`? If it is...

> > @phimuemue The difference is *order*, `combination_with_replacement` is insensitive to order, so it only outputs `aab`, `aba` OR `baa`, correct? On the other hand `cartesian_power` will output `aab`, `aba`...

> The other option I like is what @jswrenn suggests: > > > You could nix the argument and determine the appropriate Item with a type parameter instead. > >...