Tracking Issue for try_reserve method on more containers

[TennyZhuang]

This is another tracking issue for the try_reserve part of the RFC "fallible collection allocation" (rust-lang/rfcs#2116).
The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(try_reserve_2)].

The feature is a follow-up to #48043. Since try_reserve was stabilized in 1.57.0, we may need a new feature gate for further try_reserve implementation on more containers.

About tracking issues

Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions.
A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature.
Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.

Steps

• Implement try_reserve and try_reserve_exact on BinaryHeap add BinaryHeap::try_reserve and BinaryHeap::try_reserve_exact #91529
• Implement try_reserve and try_reserve_exact on PathBuf std: Implement try_reserve and try_reserve_exact on PathBuf #92513
• Implement try_reserve and try_reserve_exact on OsString Add try_reserve and try_reserve_exact for OsString #92338
• Adjust documentation (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)
• Stabilization PR (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)

If any containers were missing, please comment in the issue, and I will add it to the list.

Unresolved Questions

Implementation history

#91529
#92338
#92513

[Xuanwo]

After a diff between https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/?search=reserve and https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/?search=try_reserve, I think the current list is complete.

[Xuanwo]

I'm interested in implement try_reserve and try_reserve_exact on PathBuf.

[Xuanwo]

@TennyZhuang Please help update the issue link into description: #92338

[Xuanwo]

And the support of PathBuf will be based on work #92338, I will continue it after this PR get merged.

[Xuanwo]

@TennyZhuang #92513 has been submitted for review. Let's go forward the stabilization!