Fix typo in documentation of i32 wrapping_abs()
Hi!
I was reading through the std library docs and noticed that this section flowed a bit oddly; comparing it against https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.wrapping_div and https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.wrapping_neg , I noticed that those two pieces of documentation used a semicolon here.
This is my first time submitting a PR to this repo. Am I doing this right? Are tiny typo-fix PRs like this worth submitting, or are they not a good use of time?
Thank you!
Switch to intra-doc links in `std::macros`
Part of #75080.
---
* Switch to intra-doc links in `std::macros`
* Fix typo in module docs
* Link to `std::io::stderr` instead of `std::io::Stderr` to match the
link text
* Link to `std::io::stdout`
---
@rustbot modify labels: A-intra-doc-links T-doc T-rustdoc
- Add a new `prim@` disambiguator, since both modules and primitives are
in the same namespace
- Refactor `report_ambiguity` into a closure
Additionally, I noticed that rustdoc would previously allow
`[struct@char]` if `char` resolved to a primitive (not if it had a
DefId). I fixed that and added a test case.
Fix intra-doc links for associated items
@Manishearth and I found that links of the following sort are broken:
```rust
$ cat str_from.rs
/// [`String::from`]
pub fn foo() {}
$ rustdoc str_from.rs
warning: `[String::from]` cannot be resolved, ignoring it.
--> str_from.rs:4:6
|
4 | /// [`String::from`]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cannot be resolved, ignoring
```
It turns out this is because the current implementation only looks at inherent impls (`impl Bar {}`) and traits _for the item being documented_. Note that this is not the same as the item being _linked_ to. So this code would work:
```rust
pub trait T1 {
fn method();
}
pub struct S;
impl T1 for S {
/// [S::method] on method
fn method() {}
}
```
but putting the documentation on `trait T1` would not.
~~I realized that writing it up that my fix is only partially correct: It removes the inherent impls code when it should instead remove the `trait_item` code.~~ Fixed.
Additionally, I discovered while writing this there is some ambiguity: you could have multiple methods with the same name, but for different traits:
```rust
pub trait T1 {
fn method();
}
pub trait T2 {
fn method();
}
/// See [S::method]
pub struct S;
```
Rustdoc should give an ambiguity error here, but since there is currently no way to disambiguate the traits (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74563) it does not (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74489#issuecomment-673878404).
There is a _third_ ambiguity that pops up: What if the trait is generic and is implemented multiple times with different generic parameters? In this case, my fix does not do very well: it thinks there is only one trait instantiated and links to that trait:
```
/// [`String::from`] -- this resolves to https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/alloc/string/struct.String.html#method.from
pub fn foo() {}
```
However, every `From` implementation has a method called `from`! So the browser picks a random one. This is not the desired behavior, but it's not clear how to avoid it.
To be consistent with the rest of intra-doc links, this only resolves associated items from traits that are in scope. This required changes to rustc_resolve to work cross-crate; the relevant commits are prefixed with `resolve: `. As a bonus, considering only traits in scope is slightly faster. To avoid re-calculating the traits over and over, rustdoc uses a cache to store the traits in scope for a given module.
Provide better spans for the match arm without tail expression
Resolves#75418.
Applied the same logic in the `if`-`else` type mismatch case.
r? @estebank
Document that slice refers to any pointer type to a sequence
I was recently confused about the way slices are represented in memory. The necessary information was not available in the std-docs directly, but was a mix of different material from the reference and book.
This PR should clear up the definition of slices a bit more in the documentation. Especially the fact that the term slice refers to the pointer/reference type, e.g. `&[T]`, and not `[T]`.
It also documents that slice pointers are twice the size of pointers to `Sized` types, as this concept may be unfamiliar to users coming from other languages that do not have the concept of "fat pointers" (especially C/C++).
I've documented why this was important to me and my findings in [this blog post](https://codecrash.me/understanding-rust-slices).
r? @lcnr
stabilize ptr_offset_from
This stabilizes ptr::offset_from, and closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41079. It also removes the deprecated `wrapping_offset_from`. This function was deprecated 19 days ago and was never stable; given an FCP of 10 days and some waiting time until FCP starts, that leaves at least a month between deprecation and removal which I think is fine for a nightly-only API.
Regarding the open questions in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41079:
* Should offset_from abort instead of panic on ZSTs? -- As far as I know, there is no precedent for such aborts. We could, however, declare this UB. Given that the size is always known statically and the check thus rather cheap, UB seems excessive.
* Should there be more methods like this with different restrictions (to allow nuw/nsw, perhaps) or that return usize (like how isize-taking offset is more conveniently done with usize-taking add these days)? -- No reason to block stabilization on that, we can always add such methods later.
Also nominating the lang team because this exposes an intrinsic.
The stabilized method is best described [by its doc-comment](56d4b2d69a/src/libcore/ptr/const_ptr.rs (L227)). The documentation forgot to mention the requirement that both pointers must "have the same provenance", aka "be derived from pointers to the same allocation", which I am adding in this PR. This is a precondition that [Miri already implements](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=a3b9d0a07a01321f5202cd99e9613480) and that, should LLVM ever obtain a `psub` operation to subtract pointers, will likely be required for that operation (following the semantics in [this paper](https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/twinsem/twinsem.pdf)).
Fix cargo dev new_lint for late lint passes
Since 30c046ede4, `LateLintPass` has only one lifetime parameter.
I'm not sure how to easily test this, I think adding this kind of tests would be probably part of #5394
changelog: none
