| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Because my '30 minute intro' was originally a blog post, the tone was a bit too light. It also was written a long time ago, and deserves a bit of a refresher for modern Rust. now that my work on the Guide is wrapping up, I want to give it a quick re-write as well.
This is not yet done, but I'm submitting it for feedback so far. I'd really like some comments on the ownership part in particular, which gets lower level than before, but is not strictly 100% accurate. Trying to strike a balance.
In general, I'm not sure I go into enough detail for those without systems experience, but am afraid of too much detail for those that do.
Rendered view: https://github.com/steveklabnik/rust/blob/intro_redux/src/doc/intro.md
/cc @wycats @nikomatsakis @brson etc
|
|
|
|
[breaking-change]
If you are using slicing syntax you will need to add #![feature(slicing_syntax)] to your crate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
These are a few small edits to the Guide that I made while reading online. Really well done and approachable.
I have a few questions below, but I don't know if this is the proper place to ask them, so feel free to ignore the below.
1. Trailing commas seem to be a convention in Rust and are used quite a bit throughout the Guide, but are never explicitly mentioned. Maybe adding a short mention about them when they first appear in the Structs section might be helpful to those who are unfamiliar with or don't use them in other languages.
2. In the Iterators section, there is a block of code like this:
```rust
let mut range = range(0i, 10i);
loop {
match range.next() {
Some(x) => {
println!("{}", x);
} // no comma needed?
None => { break }
}
}
```
My inclination would be to put a comma where the comment is to separate the two arms to get this to compile, but it runs fine either way. Is there a convention on commas for scenarios like this where each arm is enclosed in `{}`?
All the best,
O-I
|
|
|
|
Oddly (to me), this code runs fine without the comma separating the `Some` and `None` arms of the `match` construct. It seems like Rust doesn't require you to separate arms with commas if all the expressions are enclosed in braces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See issue #17672. This was started in commit ee1cbb9c71bfab8500dfabedb35ba63dd1e5b7ff, but there were a few more lines to update.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was originally on my blog, so it's incredibly informal. Let's make
it better.
|
|
@steveklabnik, are you interested in looking this over?
|
|
Conflicts:
src/libcollections/lib.rs
src/libcore/lib.rs
src/librustdoc/lib.rs
src/librustrt/lib.rs
src/libserialize/lib.rs
src/libstd/lib.rs
src/test/run-pass/issue-8898.rs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes #17190
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 95cfc35607ccf5f02f02de56a35a9ef50fa23a82.
|
|
|
|
[breaking-change]
If you are using slicing syntax you will need to add #![feature(slicing_syntax)] to your crate.
|
|
Fixes #17676.
|
|
Fixes #17671.
|
|
Fixes #17672
|
|
Fixes #17674
|
|
|
|
Fixes #16983.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mention that using `pub` is called exporting.
Remove that `use` is called re-exporting, because `pub use` should be
called re-exporting. The guide currently doesn't cover `pub use`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This breaks code that looks like:
match foo {
1..3 => { ... }
}
Instead, write:
match foo {
1...3 => { ... }
}
Closes #17295.
r? @nick29581
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This breaks code that looks like:
match foo {
1..3 => { ... }
}
Instead, write:
match foo {
1...3 => { ... }
}
Closes #17295.
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
It's a rather useful syntax, and non-obvious.
A friend of mine is learning Rust and was trying to find a way to easily do such an initialization — he couldn't find it in the guide and was pretty surprised when I showed him. Looks like something that should be mentioned.
r? @steveklabnik
|
|
The sentence "The new iterator `filter()` produces returns only the elements that that closure returned `true` for:" can be structured as:
"The new iterator `filter()` produces only the elements that that closure returned `true` for:"
or as:
"The new iterator `filter()` returns only the elements that that closure returned `true` for:"
however, not both.
I went with "produces", since it then talks about returning true and having "return" so close together doesn't sound nice.
r @steveklabnik ?
|
