| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
The previous version suggested that the compiler chooses not to check, rather than being unable to check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix a few links in the docs
r? @steveklabnik
|
|
|
|
It was stable since Rust 1.8.
|
|
rather than "test function", which would be `it_works`
|
|
Signed-off-by: Freyskeyd <simon.paitrault@iadvize.com>
|
|
r=steveklabnik
book: size and align in trait object vtables are used
The book currently claims that the `size` and `align` fields in the
trait object vtable are not used, but this is false. These two fields
are used by the stable `mem::size_of_val` and `mem::align_of_val`
functions.
See the `ty::TyDynamic` case of the `glue::size_and_align_of_dst`
function in librustc_trans, which is used to implement both intrinsics
in the unsized case.
r? @steveklabnik
|
|
Add `&mut expr` to syntax index
|
|
r=steveklabnik
Update struct_expr grammar for field init shorthand.
Part of the work for #38830 .
r? @steveklabnik
|
|
book: match enum warning
Matching enums with named fields in the previous way yielded the "non_shorthand_field_patterns" warning.
The new code shows the shorthand syntax as well as field renaming, so it should be exhaustive ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also fix a typo which linkchecker should have caught.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The book currently claims that the `size` and `align` fields in the
trait object vtable are not used, but this is false. These two fields
are used by the stable `mem::size_of_val` and `mem::align_of_val`
functions.
See the `ty::TyDynamic` case of the `glue::size_and_align_of_dst`
function in librustc_trans, which is used to implement both intrinsics
in the unsized case.
|
|
As it is written it creates a lot of confusion.
|
|
[libcollections] [doc] Fix typo in documentation
Replace two instances of `an raw` with `a raw` in documentation blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add more docs for CoerceUnsized and Unsize
here be dragons
r? @ubsan @steveklabnik
|
|
book: use abort() over loop {} for panic
Due to #28728 `loop {}` is very risky and can lead to fun debugging experiences such as #38136. Besides, aborting is probably better behavior than an infinite loop.
r? @steveklabnik
|
|
Due to #28728 loop {} is very risky and can lead to fun debugging experiences like in #38136. Besides, aborting is probably better behavior than an infinite loop.
|
|
These are some bare-bones documentation for custom derive, needed
to stabilize "macros 1.1",
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35900
The book chapter is based off of a blog post by @cbreeden,
https://cbreeden.github.io/Macros11/
Normally, we have a policy of not mentioning external crates in
documentation. However, given that syn/quote are basically neccesary
for properly using macros 1.1, I feel that not including them here
would make the documentation very bad. So the rules should be bent
in this instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use more specific panic message for &str slicing errors
Separate out of bounds errors from character boundary errors, and print
more details for character boundary errors.
It reports the first error it finds in:
1. begin out of bounds
2. end out of bounds
3. begin <= end violated
3. begin not char boundary
5. end not char boundary.
Example:
&"abcαβγ"[..4]
thread 'str::test_slice_fail_boundary_1' panicked at 'byte index 4 is not
a char boundary; it is inside 'α' (bytes 3..5) of `abcαβγ`'
Fixes #38052
|
|
Matching enums with named fields in the previous way yielded the "non_shorthand_field_patterns" warning.
The new code shows the shorthand syntax as well as field renaming, so it should be exhaustive ;-)
|
|
|
|
Use "an" before "i32"
(Minor typo fix.)
Since the word `i32` starts with a vowel, the indefinite article should use "an", not "a" \[[1](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/an)\]. (Previously there was one instance of "an i32" and two instances of "a i32", so at least something is wrong!) Since I believe that "an" is the correct form, I aligned everything with that.
|
|
Add missing apostrophe.
(Minor typo fix.)
The "support" in this case is possessed by the "programmer", and that ownership should be indicated by an apostrophe.
|
|
Document foreign variadic functions in TRPL and the reference.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38485.
|
|
(Minor typo fix.)
Since the word `i32` starts with a vowel, the indefinite article should use "an", not "a" \[[1](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/an)\]. (Previously there was one instance of "an i32" and two instances of "a i32", so at least something is wrong!) Since I believe that "an" is the correct form, I aligned everything with that.
|
|
(Minor typo fix.)
The "support" in this case is possessed by the "programmer", and that ownership should be indicated by an apostrophe.
|
|
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38485.
|
|
"verboten" is german for "forbidden"
|
|
Fix Markdown list formatting.
The Markdown engine used by the book can cope with a single leading space on the list marker:
Like this:
* List item
Rather than like this:
* List item
… but it’s not the typical convention employed in the book, and moreover the Markdown engine used for producing the error index *can’t* cope with it (its behaviour looks like a bug, as it appears to lose one of the two line breaks as well, but that’s immaterial here).
So, we shift to a single convention which doesn’t trigger bugs in the Markdown renderer.
----
See https://doc.rust-lang.org/error-index.html#E0458 and https://doc.rust-lang.org/error-index.html#E0101 for the bad current rendering in the error index.
|
|
Simplify notes on testing and concurrency
The start of the notes on tests running concurrently, added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/37766 read a little awkwardly. This PR fixes that and simplifies the wording a bit.
r? @steveklabnik
|
|
book: replace example I do not understand
|
|
|
|
The Markdown engine used by the book can cope with a single leading space
on the list marker:
Like this:
* List item
Rather than like this:
* List item
… but it’s not the typical convention employed in the book, and moreover
the Markdown engine used for producing the error index *can’t* cope with
it (its behaviour looks like a bug, as it appears to lose one of the two
line breaks as well, but that’s immaterial here).
So, we shift to a single convention which doesn’t trigger bugs in the
Markdown renderer.
|
|
minor fix about visibility in reference
|
|
Calling if-let a combination of if and let is confusing, as some may be led to believe that it's a literal combination, instead of syntactic sugar added to the language as a convenience. What's there to stop someone from thinking if-let is just if and let together?
I do think this article does a good job of implying what's really going on; however, I was only able to notice this after I had begun to understand if/while-let statements, courtesy of the Rust IRC chat.
Basically, this article lacks the clarity and explicitness an inexperienced programmer like me needs in order to understand the contents fully. This is shown by my inability to understand the if-let concept from this page of the Book alone.
I think convenience, sugar, and (if-let != if + let) should all be made mention of in a clear, explicit manner. I lack confidence in my understanding of this issue, so I wrote just enough to hopefully get my thoughts across.
|
|
|
