From 46c5a5d234f13dcf4bb4cf4241b2addedbf0be14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Philipp Krones <hello@philkrones.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 20:34:47 +0100
Subject: Merge commit 'f4850f7292efa33759b4f7f9b7621268979e9914' into clippyup

---
 src/docs/explicit_counter_loop.txt | 21 ---------------------
 1 file changed, 21 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 src/docs/explicit_counter_loop.txt

(limited to 'src/docs/explicit_counter_loop.txt')

diff --git a/src/docs/explicit_counter_loop.txt b/src/docs/explicit_counter_loop.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 2661a43e103..00000000000
--- a/src/docs/explicit_counter_loop.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,21 +0,0 @@
-### What it does
-Checks `for` loops over slices with an explicit counter
-and suggests the use of `.enumerate()`.
-
-### Why is this bad?
-Using `.enumerate()` makes the intent more clear,
-declutters the code and may be faster in some instances.
-
-### Example
-```
-let mut i = 0;
-for item in &v {
-    bar(i, *item);
-    i += 1;
-}
-```
-
-Use instead:
-```
-for (i, item) in v.iter().enumerate() { bar(i, *item); }
-```
\ No newline at end of file
-- 
cgit 1.4.1-3-g733a5