scottmcm

@mark-i-m I dislike them when they're just sugar for `!`, but if there's a difference in what they do (like the `unless` block must be `: !`), then it might...

As I said in , this shouldn't return `Chain`, and definitely shouldn't include a type alias. I agree with **cuviper** that this is a slice-to-slices split thing, not something that...

As I was typing this out, @the8472 [pointed out](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/syntactical.20parallelism.20for.20multiple.20clones/near/406160169) that some types -- notably `Arc` -- could do something faster here if they know it's happening. So another alternative here...

Something very much like that exists in nightly already, @ChayimFriedman2 -- https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.next_chunk The problem is that even if that's stable, it's fallible because there's no type-based minimum length on iterators...

My primary intent here is that there's no safe-and-efficient way to do `[x; N]` for non-Copy things today. I think we should have an obvious way to point to. If...

cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119530#issuecomment-1878583102, for another motivation example

I was reminded of this again today in Discord: https://discord.com/channels/273534239310479360/1120175689124036669/1219021342003691520  Being able to say `array::repeat(foo)` as the answer would be great there, and if that doesn't address the `Arc`...

This sounds like a team question, not a reviewer question. r? rust-lang/libs

@bors r+ rollup

Oh, good point Ralf. I didn't notice it's currently 9 commits.