[v0.1.14 blocker] Should Port<'a> have a different name?

[seanmonstar]

In #173, which is now in master, we added a Port<'a>, which includes not only the u16 port number, but also the &str of the port. This allows efficiently asking for the "port" part of a Uri as a string, without needing to get a u16 and allocate a new String by calling port_num.to_string().

In #219, also in master, a uri::Builder was introduced. The idea is to allow for easily building up a Uri from fallible parts. It seems like it could be nice to add a port setter, which takes a generic P where Port: HttpTryFrom<P>. This would allow a user to pass a u16, a &str, or a Port from a different Uri.

However, with Port<'a>, adding this API to uri::Builder would be impossible. So, should Port<'a> be renamed to something else? It'd be useful to find other precedents, but until they are found and listed, if renaming is desired, some possible names are:

• PortRef<'a>
• PortSlice<'a>
• PortPart<'a>

As this type isn't released yet (only on master), and it affects whether we can add to the uri::Builder API, I believe finding an answer should block releasing v0.1.14.

[carllerche]

What about:

struct Port<T = Bytes> {
   parsed: u16,
   repr: T,
}

[seanmonstar]

That could work nicely.