For a user following the path of reading Chapter 5: Syntax & Symantics
prior to Chapter 4: Learn Rust, this will be the first time they have
encountered executable tests inside documentation comments.
The test will fail because the `add_one` function is not defined in
the context of the doctest. This might not be the optimal place to
introduce and explain the `/// #` notation but I think it is important
that this snippet pass as a test when `rustdoc --test` is run against
it if it is going to be shown.
The sensible default used here for the version number in the
auto-generated Cargo.toml is 0.1.0, not 0.0.1 (at least as of cargo
0.2.0-nightly efb482d).
The recent bug that was found in LinkedList reminded me of some general cleanup
that's been waiting for some time.
- Use a loop from the front in Drop, it works just as well and without an unsafe block
- Change Rawlink methods to use `unsafe` in an idiomatic way. This does mean that
we need an unsafe block for each dereference of a raw link. Even then, the extent
of unsafe-critical code is even larger of course, since safety depends on the whole
data structure's integrity. This is a general problem we are aware of.
- Some cleanup just to try to decrease the amount of Rawlink handling.
This wasn't marked inline, so wasn't being inlined cross-crate. It's
actually a no-op function, since it's a wrapper around `mem::transmute`.
Marking it inline means that programs calling it can see that it's a
no-op and act accordingly during optimisation.
The statement is not completely exact, because it is valid to have
both 0 non-mutable references and 1 mutable reference. Instead, use
the same wording as in mutability.md.
Hi
I added a little section in the for loops about the `enumerate()` function.
I think it's useful for beginners to know this function and how you can use it.
I used the title loopcounter, but it's probably not the best word to describe it. So let me know if there is a better word :)
This wasn't marked inline, so wasn't being inlined cross-crate. It's
actually a no-op function, since it's a wrapper around `mem::transmute`.
Marking it inline means that programs calling it can see that it's a
no-op and act accordingly during optimisation.
The statement is not completely exact, because it is valid to have
both 0 non-mutable references and 1 mutable reference. Instead, use
the same wording as in mutability.md.
