From 6553d0d55119512369f3636c93ae86c2e609bd7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Manish Goregaokar Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2024 16:28:07 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] punctuation in parens --- library/core/src/pin.rs | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/library/core/src/pin.rs b/library/core/src/pin.rs index a8ef5949e7a..600208132ba 100644 --- a/library/core/src/pin.rs +++ b/library/core/src/pin.rs @@ -714,7 +714,7 @@ //! return [`&mut Field`] or [Pin]<[`&mut Field`]>? This question also arises with //! `enum`s and wrapper types like [`Vec`], [`Box`], and [`RefCell`]. (This question //! applies just as well to shared references, but we'll examine the more common case of mutable -//! references for illustration). +//! references for illustration) //! //! It turns out that it's up to the author of `Struct` to decide which type the "projection" //! should produce. The choice must be *consistent* though: if a pin is projected to a field @@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ //! structural pinning to an inner field of `T`, which may not be [`Unpin`]! (Adding *any* //! projection operation requires unsafe code, so the fact that [`Unpin`] is a safe trait does //! not break the principle that you only have to worry about any of this if you use -//! [`unsafe`].) +//! [`unsafe`]) //! //! 2. *Pinned Destruction.* As discussed [above][drop-impl], [`drop`] takes //! [`&mut self`], but the struct (and hence its fields) might have been pinned