With try_reserve(_exact) stabilized, the following pattern is going to start cropping up (it already does in our internal code base):

let mut buf = Vec::new();
buf.try_reserve_exact(cap)?;

Would adding one or two extra methods per container; try_with_capacity(capacity: usize) -> Result<.., TryReserveError> and try_with_capacity_in(capacity: usize, alloc: A) -> Result<.., TryReserveError> be appropriate ?

Note that the two-liner above works perfectly to the best of my knowledge, it is just a question of conciseness. I also find it makes intent clearer from the start, but other may have diverging opinions on this.

Affected types would be:

• try_with_capacity_in(capacity: usize, alloc: A) -> Result<.., TryReserveError> (see all types):
  • std::collections::VecDeque
  • std::vec::Vec
• try_with_capacity(capacity: usize) -> Result<.., TryReserveError> (see all types):
  • std::collections::BinaryHeap
  • std::collections::VecDeque
  • std::collections::hash_map::HashMap
  • std::collections::hash_set::HashSet
  • std::ffi::OsString
  • std::io::BufReader
  • std::io::BufWriter
  • std::io::LineWriter
  • std::path::PathBuf
  • std::string::String
  • std::vec::Vec

@rustbot label T-libs C-feature-request T-libs-api

Aside: I'm not sure if this falls under A-allocators