Futures-rs: Consider renaming Stream::into_future -> Stream::next

[carllerche]

Whenever I use Stream::into_future I'm really trying to get the next value. It seems like next may be a better name?

[46bit]

I'll chime in as liking this as well.

[cramertj]

I generally wouldn't expect next to move self. I'm used to the convention established in the Iterator trait of having next take &mut self.

[Xion]

Agree with @cramertj . next is a mutator method, and having Stream::next consume it is unexpected. I wouldn't be opposed to _introducing_ next(&mut self) -> Future<T> but I'm not sure how much utility such a method would have.

If you want to rename into_future, I think slice::split_first is its closest analogue in the standard library, so calling it split_first seems natural.

[flosse]

It's a bit off-topic but I couldn't find an answer how to take one item out of a stream without consuming the stream. So I'm looking exactly for a method like next(&mut self) -> Future<T>!
How can I achieve that at the moment?

Here is my original question:
https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/6v11os/hey_rustaceans_got_an_easy_question_ask_here/dm4c85h/

[alexcrichton]

@flosse that's unfortunately not easily done right now, but you can always write your own combinator to achieve what you're thinking of

[aturon]

We should consider this now that we have poll_next -- it's a common thing to have poll_foo and foo variants, where the latter yields a future.

@cramertj thoughts?

[cramertj]

@aturon Yup, I think next makes sense.