Thanks, this is great! I don't have the head space or time to wrap my head around the nuances of the Reallocator API here at the moment, but I wanted to ask if the documentation needs to be updated to reflect any possible changes in assumptions made. I don't fully understand them yet myself, I'd need a closer look later to try to verify.

Thanks! I looked over the documentation and I don't think any changes are necessary, as it maintains the assumption that the elements of the matrix are not dropped. My only question would be whether it would make more sense to move the new method to RawStorage instead of Storage.

I haven't forgotten this PR, but I haven't yet been able to devote time to it. It came up on Discord though, and @sebcrozet suggested that the forget function needs to be unsafe, and maybe it should be called forget_elements or something along those lines.

I'll try to get back to this soon, but I suspect I'll be quite busy this week.

I like the name forget_elements, I think it gets the behaviour across more accurately than what I put right now.

I don't think it should be unsafe, for the same reason that mem::forget isn't unsafe. Safety does not guarantee that destructors are called, so there is nothing unsafe about calling this function. Marking it as unsafe would push obligations of ensuring safety onto everywhere it is called, which could be hard to follow given that it is a trait method and there are several implementations. Perhaps the behaviour and safety attributes just need to be better documented, as is the case for mem::forget.

Sounds good, I will make the necessary changes this weekend.

I believe it is now good to go, let me know if any other changes are needed!

Thanks @nickmertin, it's ready to merge now. Great to have this bug fixed! I'm not merging immediately because of the breaking change in introducing forget_elements to the Storage trait. In principle, I think we could merge directly since the dev branch already contains unreleased breaking changes, but I'll run it by the others later.

Hey! Thank you for this PR @nickmertin, and @Andlon and @tpdickso for reviews.
I merged this work as part of #1416 since I wasn’t able to rebase this PR on top of dev for today’s release. My guess is that Allow edits from maintainers wasn’t checked for this PR (and I didn’t want to bother the author on a Sunday).