Tracking issue for clamp RFC

[Xaeroxe]

Tracking issue for rust-lang/rfcs#1961

PR here: #44097 #58710
Stabilization PR: #77872

TODO:

• Have RFC pass final comment period
• Implement RFC
• Stabilize

[pcwalton]

Please note: This broke Servo and Pathfinder.

[aturon]

cc @rust-lang/libs, this is a case similar to min/max, where the ecosystem was already using the clamp name, and hence adding it has caused ambiguity. This is permitted breakage per semver policy, but it's nevertheless causing downstream pain.

Nominating for the triage meeting on Tues.

Any thoughts in the meantime?

[BurntSushi]

I'm kind of with @bluss on this one in that it would be nice not to repeat it. "Clamp" is probably a great name, but could we sidestep this by choosing a different name?

[Xaeroxe]

restrict
clamp_to_range
min_max (Because it's kind of like combining min and max.)
These might work. Can we use crater to determine how bad the impact of clamp actually is? clamp is well recognized across several languages and libraries.

[aturon]

If we think we might need to rename, it's probably best to revert the PR immediately, and then test more carefully with crater etc. @Xaeroxe, up for that?