[duped]

The condescension isn't appropriate here. I'm talking about using `Vec` as a convenient temporary storage without additional bookkeeping on top if the capacity() is meaningful. Like you said, Rust doesn't guarantee that because `reserve_exact` is not `reserve_exact`. In C++, the pattern is to resize() and shrink_to_fit(), which is implementation defined but when it's defined to do what it says, you can rely on it.

> Now, what disaster awaits in the common code you're talking about? Capacity is 6 and... there's capacity for 6 entries instead of 4

The capacity was expected to be 4 and not 6, which may be a logical error in code that requires it to be. If this wasn't a problem the docs wouldn't call it out as a potential problem.

[tialaramex]

The condescension you've detected is because I doubt your main premise - that what you've described is "common" and so the defined behaviour will have a significant negative outcome. It's no surprise to me that you can offer no evidence for that premise whatsoever and instead just retreat to insisting you were correct anyway.

The resize + shrink_to_fit incantation sounds to me a lot like one of those "Sprinkle the volatile keyword until it works" ritualistic C++ practices not based in any facts.

[fc417fc802]

> the pattern is to resize() and shrink_to_fit(),

As someone who primarily writes C++ I would not expect that to work. I mean it's great if it does I guess (I don't really see the point?) but that would honestly surprise me.

I would _always_ expect to use >= for capacity comparisons and I don't understand what the downside would be. The entire point of these data structures is that they manage the memory for you. If you need precise control over memory layout then these are the wrong tools for the job.