I found these automatically, but fixed them manually to ensure the semantics are correct. I know things like these are hardly important, since they only marginally improve clarity. But at least for me typos and simple grammatical errors trigger an---unjustified---sense of unprofessionalism, despite the fact that I make them all the time and I understand that they're the sort of thing that is bound to slip through review.
Anyway, to find most of these I used:
* `ag '.*//.*(\b[A-Za-z]{2,}\b) \1\b'` for repeated words
* `ag '\b(the|this|those|these|a|it) (a|the|this|those|these|it)\b'` to find constructs like 'the this' etc. many false positives, but not too hard to scroll through them to actually find the mistakes.
* `cat ../../typos.txt | paste -d'|' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | tr '\n' '\0' | xargs -0 -P4 -n1 ag`. Hacky way to find misspellings, but it works ok. I got `typos.txt` from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists_of_common_misspellings/For_machines)
* `ag '.*//.* a ([ae][a-z]|(o[^n])|(i[a-rt-z]))'` to find places where 'a' was followed by a vowel (requiring 'an' instead).
I also used a handful more one off regexes that are too boring to reproduce here.
This adds a chapter to the nightly section of the book on leveraging and
implementing the `#![allocator]` attribute to write custom allocators as well as
explaining the current situation with allocators.
The diff can hopefully speak for itself. Regardless: this chapter of the book contained a sentence where "the" was mistakenly repeated twice. In this same section, there was a comma separating two sentences where a period should have been. This PR fixes both issues.
This is to address issue #28803 by improving some of the references to closures, to explain what they are more clearly, while hopefully still being concise.
r? @steveklabnik
Implement cannot-assume-parametricity (CAP) from RFC 1238, and add the
UGEH attribute.
----
Note that we check for the attribute attached to the dtor method, not
the Drop impl.
(This is just to match the specification of RFC and the tests; I am
not wedded to this approach.)
The "Rust Inside Other Languages" page includes a library example. The
reference specifies printing "done!" when the code finishes running, and
the language examples (Ruby, Python, JS) all do this in their code.
However, the Rust library example code *also* does this, so that the
examples as written would output "done!" twice.
This removes the "done!" from the Rust example code to clarify the docs.
This is part of #28572, but doesn't complete it. Amongst other things,
this patch:
* Increases consistency in the way feature flags are used with other
docs.
* Removes the ignores, which is nice: we actually had some syntax errors
in the examples 😭.
* Mentions #![no_core]
Realistically, this document used to be in the order of least to most:
nothing, then adding core. But with the changes in RFC 1184, this is
backwards: it now shows stuff that uses core from the beginning. In the
future, I'd like to revamp this to go from 'most to least', but I'd like
to see the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27701
goes before I write more.
We don't completely cover documentation tests in the testing chapter,
since we cover them in the documentation chapter. So make sure people
know that.
Fixes#28082
The original blog post referred to examples by their file names, and now
that it's in guide form, there is no file name. So edit the text so that
it makes a bit more sense.
Fixes#28428
The links in the rustdoc for several places in fmt were trying to link to
the std::fmt module but actually linking to std, which was confusing.
While trying to figure out why I noticed that the documentation chapter of
the Rust book has examples that show this same bug (although it doesn't seem
widespread in practice).
r? @steveklabnik
We don't completely cover documentation tests in the testing chapter,
since we cover them in the documentation chapter. So make sure people
know that.
Fixes#28082
The original blog post referred to examples by their file names, and now
that it's in guide form, there is no file name. So edit the text so that
it makes a bit more sense.
Fixes#28428
The links in the rustdoc for several places in fmt were trying to link to
the std::fmt module but actually linking to std, which was confusing.
While trying to figure out why I noticed that the documentation chapter of
the Rust book has examples that show this same bug (although it doesn't seem
widespread in practice).
This is part of #28572, but doesn't complete it. Amongst other things,
this patch:
* Increases consistency in the way feature flags are used with other
docs.
* Removes the ignores, which is nice: we actually had some syntax errors
in the examples 😭.
* Mentions #![no_core]
Realistically, this document used to be in the order of least to most:
nothing, then adding core. But with the changes in RFC 1184, this is
backwards: it now shows stuff that uses core from the beginning. In the
future, I'd like to revamp this to go from 'most to least', but I'd like
to see the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27701
goes before I write more.
- Expand the first paragraph
- Improve readability by partitioning the chapter into the following
sections: "Patterns", "Type annotations", "Mutability", and
"Initializing bindings"
- Add "Scope and shadowing" section (fix#28177)
This was non-obvious to me: with no example, I assumed `Electron {}` and
didn't know what else to try when it didn't work. The correct form is
weird because it looks like you're assigning the struct name rather than
an instance of the struct.
r? @steveklabnik
the example for `find` was misleading in that it fails to mention the result is either `None` or `Some` containing only the first match. Further confusing the issue is the `println!` statement, "We got some numbers!"
This wasn't complete (you need a `./configure`), and it is already
documented well in the main README.
Also adds a reference to the books that this also generates.
This was non-obvious to me: with no example, I assumed `Electron {}` and
didn't know what else to try when it didn't work. The correct form is
weird because it looks like you're assigning the struct name rather than
an instance of the struct.
the example for `find` was misleading in that it fails to mention the result is either `None` or `Some` containing only the first match. Further confusing the issue is the `println!` statement, "We got some numbers!"
This adds a new target property, `target_vendor`. It is to be be used as a matcher for conditional compilation. The vendor is part of the [autoconf target triple](http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1Triple.html#details): `<arch><sub>-<vendor>-<os>-<env>`. `arch`, `target_os` and `target_env` are already supported by Rust.
This change was suggested in PR #28593. It enables conditional compilation based on the vendor. This is needed for the rumprun target, which needs to match against both, target_os and target_vendor.
The default value for `target_vendor` is "unknown", "apple" and "pc" are other common values.
Matching against the `target_vendor` is introduced behind the feature gate `#![feature(cfg_target_vendor)]`.
This is the first time I messed around with rustc internals. I just added the my code where I found the existing `target_*` variables, hopefully I haven't missed anything. Please review with care. :)
r? @alexcrichton
This adds a new target property, `target_vendor` which can be used as a
matcher for conditional compilation. The vendor is part of the autoconf
target triple: <arch><sub>-<vendor>-<os>-<env>
The default value for `target_vendor` is "unknown".
Matching against the `target_vendor` with `#[cfg]` is currently feature
gated as `cfg_target_vendor`.
This changes how rustic generate `id` and `href` attributes for section header anchor. Now they are more github-like.
Also fixes breakage in docs caused by this and broken links in "Error Handling" section of book.
r? @steveklabnik
cc @alexcrichton
In code like `let x = 5`, I am initially confused as to the meaning of "let doesn't take a name on the left hand side, it actually accepts a pattern." - I interpret that as the pattern being located as: `<pattern> let [...]`.
I think what is meant is that the name/pattern is on the left hand side *of the assignment*, rather than to the left of the *let* statement. This change clarifies that.
Using "later" in this context makes more sense than "greater" so it's been changed to match the Linux requirement above it rather than the other way around.
- Headlines begin at 1st level now like the rest of the book
- All Headlines a blank line above and below
- Fix links in this chapter's TOC
r? @steveklabnik
This commit does some refactoring to make almost all of the `std::rt` private.
Specifically, the following items are no longer part of its API:
* DEFAULT_ERROR_CODE
* backtrace
* unwind
* args
* at_exit
* cleanup
* heap (this is just alloc::heap)
* min_stack
* util
The module is now tagged as `#[doc(hidden)]` as the only purpose it's serve is
an entry point for the `panic!` macro via the `begin_unwind` and
`begin_unwind_fmt` reexports.
This commit does some refactoring to make almost all of the `std::rt` private.
Specifically, the following items are no longer part of its API:
* DEFAULT_ERROR_CODE
* backtrace
* unwind
* args
* at_exit
* cleanup
* heap (this is just alloc::heap)
* min_stack
* util
The module is now tagged as `#[doc(hidden)]` as the only purpose it's serve is
an entry point for the `panic!` macro via the `begin_unwind` and
`begin_unwind_fmt` reexports.
r? @steveklabnik
The phrase 'academic research' rubs me the wrong way. I have some concern about the role of this page and think it could be expanded to more than just academic papers and cleaned up a lot.
I took a stab at fixing #28064. Not sure if this all-features-in-one-example approach is the right one. Also I completely made up the terms "star globbing" and "brace expansion globbing" -- they are just called "glob-like syntax" in the reference.
I took a stab at fixing #28064. Not sure if this all-features-in-one-example approach is the right one. Also I completely made up the terms "star globbing" and "brace expansion globbing" -- they are just called "glob-like syntax" in the reference.
As I understand, there are no proc closures in Rust any more. So this pr removes `procedure_type` production. It isn't used anywhere. The `proc` is still a keyword.
r? @steveklabnik
@bors: r+ rollup
I have two issues with the section "Deref and method calls" of the book's chapter "Deref coercions".
- (Minor) It says "In other words, these are the same two things in Rust:", followed by a code block in which no two things seem similar, much less the same. Presumably this sentence made more sense in a previous revision.
- The next paragraph conflates two concepts which, imho, should kept separate. They are
- deref coercion, i.e. inserting as many `*` as necessary and
- implicitly referencing the receiver, i.e. inserting a single `&` to satisfy the method's `self` parameter type.
I appreciate that with the proposed changes the example becomes very contrived, even for a foo-bar-baz one. However, the current exmplanation is just wrong.
This adds missing `?` marks to productions for loops and break/continue.
It also adds missing option label to while let loop.
Note that '[' foo ']' means grouping in BNF, and '?' is used for possible missing items.
r? @steveklabnik
Originally in an example it reads as follows:
```rust
fn inverse<T>() -> T
// this is using ConvertTo as if it were "ConvertFrom<i32>"
where i32: ConvertTo<T> {
42.convert()
}
```
There was no mention of `ConvertFrom` elsewhere in the page other than in this comment. Is this supposed to be `ConvertTo<i64>` ?
I'm confused by this example.
